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

Re: [hameltech] Re: 11112: new direction with cones a possibility

Expand Messages
  • Trevor Smouter
    thats how david is talking about it - I have an electronic version designed but am unsure of its ability to operate beside this thing- and as for inverted
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 8, 2005
      thats how david is talking about it - I have an electronic version
      designed but am unsure of its ability to operate beside this thing-
      and as for inverted funnels, your isotope line will then be forever
      fixed to the centerline - zig-zag instead of the spiral.

      On 6/8/05, Dell Coleman <decoleman@...> wrote:
      > Damn, I do know the answer to this -- control of the rejection magnet
      >
      > As in the Egyptian versions, the snare is used to pull the ball out of
      > the cup shaped actuator
      >
      > DC
      >
      >
      > Dell Coleman wrote:
      >
      > > Hi
      > >
      > > The lesson from Viktor Schauberger is that these systems are controlled
      > > by adding load to them --
      > > I dont have an off hand solution for that, but I'm sure we can think
      > > of one.
      > >
      > > DC
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Trevor Smouter wrote:
      > >
      > > > ... snip
      > >
      > >
      > > > Think about control before even trying to let it go,
      > > > otherwise you'll move into David's house to help him on his and we'll
      > > > still be waiting for ours to explode. ;-)
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Header Codes
      > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
      > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
      > > 11113: David Hamel reports
      > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
      > > OT: "Off Topic"
      > >
      > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
      > >
      > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
      > >
      > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > <mailto:hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
      > >
      > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Header Codes
      > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
      > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
      > 11113: David Hamel reports
      > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
      > OT: "Off Topic"
      >
      > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
      > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Matt Rock
      thanks Trevor. I know of the equilateral position in relation to movement. Glad someone brought it out from the closet. The other stuff, I am aware of thanks
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 8, 2005
        thanks Trevor.

        I know of the equilateral position in relation to movement.
        Glad someone brought it out from the closet.
        The other stuff, I am aware of thanks :)

        I don't think it will explode, she's strong, considerably matching
        what David is doing on his site and in some ways surpassing (as in
        strength in parts).

        Looking forward to the Universe pouring in. In fact, I can no longer
        wait.

        Thanks

        Matt



        --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Smouter <gusstyles@g...>
        wrote:
        > It should work without any air at all. Once you stabalize the
        > oscillator, the magnetic fields should be able to keep the system
        > tight to the center line. Stronger the magnets the better, add
        weight
        > to the cones to give them some more inertia. Once you load the
        system
        > with the top magnet the cones should contort from straight to
        > disjointed according to the isotropic line. I have not been involed
        > with many discussions with other people regarding this isotropic
        line.
        > I'm not sure how many people realize that the line must take the
        > shape of an equalaterial triangle from above, hence the use of the
        > lower pinions. Thats very important, no center line of any cone
        must
        > cross the center line of the outer system. The three cones will
        fall
        > around that line in a circular orbit.
        >
        > If the system is balenced, loading will mobilize the cones combined
        > inertia into the characteristic wobble. From there it will then
        > achieve the pre-load equalibrium dynamically by slowyly converting
        the
        > amplitude of the system into oscillatory frequency. Theoretically,
        > infite amplitude into infite frequency, like spinning a coin on a
        > table - modelling the coins behavior draws to a conclusion that what
        > appears to be stopped is really an infite frequency but lacking in
        > amplitude. The high frequecny wobble of the magnets is what creates
        > flashes of colored lights that David talks about. The pressure of
        the
        > top magnet is nothing compared to the strenght of a little weight
        > caught in a perfectly stable wobble.
        >
        > You must be able to lower the frequency very fast, sealing the
        > container removes damping, opening the vent dampes the system. At
        or
        > near the 'characteristic' frequency you start to 'tune into' and
        > therefore press on the universe. The universe pushes back much
        > harder, if the system achieves full interactive resonnace then you
        can
        > kiss it goodbye (and for safety sake hopefully you are not anywhere
        > near by). Think about control before even trying to let it go,
        > otherwise you'll move into David's house to help him on his and
        we'll
        > still be waiting for ours to explode. ;-)
        >
        > On 6/8/05, Matt Rock <mattihorn@i...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Very good thoughts Gus, David, and others.
        > >
        > > I went for a drive and pondered on this.
        > > My situation may be corrected in different ways.
        > >
        > > I can either get ceramic #1 magnets which have about 2/3rds the
        gauss
        > > rating of ceramic #8 or go to ceramic #5 which close to about 3/4
        > > strength of ceramic #8 (what I am using).
        > >
        > > or I can try the mounting on the angle at the edge of each cone,
        I
        > > will do this, and keep the existing cones off to the side.
        > >
        > > there is a non-uniformity occurring in some of the magnets. I was
        > > careful ahead a time before mounting them, and I used a hall
        effect
        > > sensor to measure the gauss on each magnet. Something was amiss,
        > > perhaps an imbalance in the polarity, and I only measure one
        pole,
        > > not both.
        > >
        > > Heat test was done, a few weeks back, using a normal oven at 200C.
        > > Found that about 30 or so gauss was being lost due to heating.
        > >
        > > "I'm not sure if its because of the advantages of magnetic
        uniformity
        > > or the ability to better ballance larger devices( or something
        > > entirly different). "
        > >
        > > Circular accuracy and proportion is more difficult to achieve
        (and
        > > should be achieved) at smaller levels.
        > > Lucky for me, only one cone is small enough to create a problem,
        but
        > > I have duplicated fabrication methods for every cone, same
        designing
        > > behind each. I use the same jigs for all cones, and they work.
        > >
        > > "This is critical since the dimensions of the pinions govern the
        > > correct ring ratios to achieve the balanced 3-
        dimensional 'isotope'
        > > line."
        > >
        > > Still trying to figure out mine as well. I have the dimensions,
        but I
        > > don't know why it is used.
        > >
        > > "Think about a way to govern the device since David as not yet
        > > achieved this(we want to see it working, not just a pile of bits
        on
        > > the floor ;)and this is now the point of the exercise. Harness
        the
        > > technology."
        > >
        > > I will be. My stainless steel design is amazingly strong. The
        frame
        > > weighs close to about 120 pounds or so. It is rock solid. The
        cones
        > > are also strong (except tips can be bent--weakest point). No
        barrel,
        > > fully open. The device, when it works, will sweep in the air and
        > > recycle it, meaning that air will be drawn in from the bottom,
        > > implosion and vortex at the middle cone, then will be pushed out
        at
        > > the top or radiated, then it will bend back down to the bottom to
        > > begin the cycle again.
        > >
        > > Matt
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "gus_styles" <gusstyles@g...>
        wrote:
        > > > Hey Matt,
        > > >
        > > > It's not a good idea to change the cone magnets for reasons
        > > > mentioned previously as well as further disruption of the
        > > uniformity
        > > > of an already poorly uniformed field on the top of the cone.
        > > >
        > > > Unfortunatly, the magnets available create gaps in the magnetic
        > > > field when arranged in any sort of arc, which will defeat the
        > > > experiment due to magnetic friction of non-uniformity. Balance
        is
        > > > key.
        > > >
        > > > Because we can't see your work it's hard to determine exactly
        what
        > > > you are doing. Don't place any material in front of the
        magnets,
        > > > especially metal banding, steel will provide a much better path
        for
        > > > the field then air due to a far higher permeability. This
        causes
        > > > the field to pass back to the opposite pole without projecting
        away
        > > > from the rim of the cone. Even without the use of a 'ferrous'
        > > band,
        > > > distortion will occur in front of the magnets proportionally to
        the
        > > > reluctance of the material.
        > > >
        > > > As for dimensions, even David has trouble getting them right.
        He
        > > > has stated to me numerous times "the size is important, It
        can't be
        > > > built small(talking like 8' diameter)". I'm not sure if its
        > > because
        > > > of the advantages of magnetic uniformity or the ability to
        better
        > > > ballance larger devices( or something entirly different). I'm
        > > > programming an application which you can have when its finished
        > > that
        > > > models the 'tree of life' experiment. You'll be able to adjust
        all
        > > > the dimensions until you acheive stability in the model (or
        even
        > > > recreate yours to find a configuration that works). I found it
        is
        > > > impractical to use trial and error for this device because
        there is
        > > > too much interplay. I can now actually model the magnetic
        forces.
        > > > The cone should jump up and cling to the ring in the simulator
        if
        > > > the dimensions aren't right(like most of us have faught against
        > > with
        > > > this experiment). The base of the system is finished ( using
        three
        > > > pinions) and the math functions to model correct movements of
        the
        > > > platform with an input of an adjustable(x,y,z) force vector
        applied
        > > > to the top center of the platform. This is critical since the
        > > > dimensions of the pinions govern the correct ring ratios to
        achieve
        > > > the balanced 3-dimensional 'isotope' line.
        > > >
        > > > I believe there is a 'magic ratio' of dimensions which one of
        us
        > > may
        > > > find fooling around with the simulator. Construction can then
        be
        > > > done easily (using lathes and metal spinning) to create a
        balanced
        > > > model which when loaded, still keeps perfect balance through
        > > > the 'isotope' line since the dimensions will need not be
        adjusted.
        > > > In fact system should be made without adjustments. Balance,
        from
        > > > loaded to unloaded without adjusting keeper rings is critical
        for
        > > > mass(inertia)-> weight-> speed-> power (A -> F).
        > > >
        > > > Think about a way to govern the device since David as not yet
        > > > achieved this(we want to see it working, not just a pile of
        bits on
        > > > the floor ;)and this is now the point of the exercise. Harness
        the
        > > > technology.
        > > >
        > > > David used electrical tape to hold his magnets on the rim (not
        > > > really a final solution but it appearently worked for him),
        maybe
        > > > good for a simple test before too much work.
        > > >
        > > > Godspeed,
        > > >
        > > > Gus
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "David K" <dkouk@b...> wrote:
        > > > > Hi Matt,
        > > > > I am not sure if having the magnets at an angle is
        right.
        > > > When
        > > > > I made my 45gd I had the m perpendicular and got good
        results. I
        > > > > remember that in order to get the cones to sit right I had to
        > > > adjust the
        > > > > diameter of the outer ring so that the centre line of the rim
        of
        > > > the
        > > > > cone sat just above the centre line of the rim or the outer
        > > ring.
        > > > I am
        > > > > not sure if your stand would allow this adjustment though.
        The
        > > > other
        > > > > options are to have weaker magnets or as I tried, cover the
        > > > magnets in
        > > > > metal to reduce their strength. Also I found that it
        involved a
        > > > fair
        > > > > bit of trial and error adjustment of the magnet heights to
        get
        > > this
        > > > > right.
        > > > > Anyway as I said it might not be right but I might be
        wrong
        > > > > there. I remember talking to Justin about this a few years
        ago.
        > > > In the
        > > > > end I think it makes the adjustment harder and I think it
        would
        > > > make the
        > > > > cones jump out of place easier.
        > > > >
        > > > > Regards
        > > > > David K
        > > > >
        > > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > > From: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
        > > [mailto:hameltech@yahoogroups.com]
        > > > On
        > > > > Behalf Of Matt Rock
        > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 10:25 AM
        > > > > To: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Subject: [hameltech] Re: 11112: new direction with cones a
        > > > possibility
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Hi Georg,
        > > > >
        > > > > the difference is that the present one's have magnets mounted
        > > > > perpendicular to the z-axis of the cone, in other words I
        have a
        > > > > metal strap or band going around the rim which is 90 degrees
        to
        > > > the
        > > > > top of the cone.
        > > > >
        > > > > The old cones, did not have this band and the magnets were
        glued
        > > > to
        > > > > the surface of the cone, hence, the angle of the cone.
        > > > >
        > > > > Matt
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Georg Gungle"
        <gunglepus@y...>
        > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > What is the difference in the placement of magnets between
        your
        > > > old
        > > > > > cone and the new cone?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Georg
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Rock"
        <mattihorn@i...>
        > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Still at it.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I think I made a slight error in magnet placement on the
        > > cones.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I have been having great trouble in getting the the
        middle
        > > cone
        > > > > to
        > > > > > > rest in the magnetic fields. as well as trouble in bottom
        and
        > > > top
        > > > > > > (less than the middle, they do find rest, but no real
        action--
        > > > ).
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > So I grabbed a small cone, that I was working on, and
        left the
        > > > > band
        > > > > > > off and attached magnets as normal (this was done on my
        old
        > > > > aluminum
        > > > > > > system which I had built from 2003). that would be the
        cone
        > > > > surface,
        > > > > > > angle, is where I would put the magnets.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Tha action I got from small cone was exactly what I am
        looking
        > > > > for, a
        > > > > > > slowly lessening sustain on the movement/vibration
        occurred,
        > > > > which
        > > > > > > lasted up to about 10 minutes. bingo
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I am going to go ahead and switch all cones over to this
        > > > > > > configuration since it is favourable. That means I may be
        > > > > building
        > > > > > > two new cones if I can not retrofit the original two.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Matt
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Header Codes
        > > > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
        > > > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
        > > > > 11113: David Hamel reports
        > > > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
        > > > > OT: "Off Topic"
        > > > >
        > > > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
        > > > >
        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Header Codes
        > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
        > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
        > > 11113: David Hamel reports
        > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
        > > OT: "Off Topic"
        > >
        > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ________________________________
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
        > >
        > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        Service.
      • jszymanek2000
        Matt, IMHO the 90 degrees arrangment for the magnets is better because it gives you a better magnetic snake in the gap. It is also how the Djed shows it.
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 8, 2005
          Matt,

          IMHO the 90 degrees arrangment for the magnets is better because it
          gives you a better "magnetic snake" in the gap. It is also how the
          Djed shows it. However it is not all roses. The balance can be extra
          tricky. The fact that it is unstable is good, because that is what
          drives it. But you have to get it setup so it is just tasting the
          instability on the edges of the vibration but it stable in the middle.

          My point is don't disregard it. But I would recommend throwing
          together something crude first to try and get a feel for how it
          behaves. I think it is important to look into different configurations
          as the pole on pole facing each other gives a weak magnetic snake if
          anything. And the "magnetic snake" is where I believe the energy comes
          from.

          Justin


          --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Rock" <mattihorn@i...> wrote:
          > thanks Trevor.
          >
          > I know of the equilateral position in relation to movement.
          > Glad someone brought it out from the closet.
          > The other stuff, I am aware of thanks :)
          >
          > I don't think it will explode, she's strong, considerably matching
          > what David is doing on his site and in some ways surpassing (as in
          > strength in parts).
          >
          > Looking forward to the Universe pouring in. In fact, I can no longer
          > wait.
          >
          > Thanks
          >
          > Matt
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Smouter <gusstyles@g...>
          > wrote:
          > > It should work without any air at all. Once you stabalize the
          > > oscillator, the magnetic fields should be able to keep the system
          > > tight to the center line. Stronger the magnets the better, add
          > weight
          > > to the cones to give them some more inertia. Once you load the
          > system
          > > with the top magnet the cones should contort from straight to
          > > disjointed according to the isotropic line. I have not been involed
          > > with many discussions with other people regarding this isotropic
          > line.
          > > I'm not sure how many people realize that the line must take the
          > > shape of an equalaterial triangle from above, hence the use of the
          > > lower pinions. Thats very important, no center line of any cone
          > must
          > > cross the center line of the outer system. The three cones will
          > fall
          > > around that line in a circular orbit.
          > >
          > > If the system is balenced, loading will mobilize the cones combined
          > > inertia into the characteristic wobble. From there it will then
          > > achieve the pre-load equalibrium dynamically by slowyly converting
          > the
          > > amplitude of the system into oscillatory frequency. Theoretically,
          > > infite amplitude into infite frequency, like spinning a coin on a
          > > table - modelling the coins behavior draws to a conclusion that what
          > > appears to be stopped is really an infite frequency but lacking in
          > > amplitude. The high frequecny wobble of the magnets is what creates
          > > flashes of colored lights that David talks about. The pressure of
          > the
          > > top magnet is nothing compared to the strenght of a little weight
          > > caught in a perfectly stable wobble.
          > >
          > > You must be able to lower the frequency very fast, sealing the
          > > container removes damping, opening the vent dampes the system. At
          > or
          > > near the 'characteristic' frequency you start to 'tune into' and
          > > therefore press on the universe. The universe pushes back much
          > > harder, if the system achieves full interactive resonnace then you
          > can
          > > kiss it goodbye (and for safety sake hopefully you are not anywhere
          > > near by). Think about control before even trying to let it go,
          > > otherwise you'll move into David's house to help him on his and
          > we'll
          > > still be waiting for ours to explode. ;-)
          > >
          > > On 6/8/05, Matt Rock <mattihorn@i...> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Very good thoughts Gus, David, and others.
          > > >
          > > > I went for a drive and pondered on this.
          > > > My situation may be corrected in different ways.
          > > >
          > > > I can either get ceramic #1 magnets which have about 2/3rds the
          > gauss
          > > > rating of ceramic #8 or go to ceramic #5 which close to about 3/4
          > > > strength of ceramic #8 (what I am using).
          > > >
          > > > or I can try the mounting on the angle at the edge of each cone,
          > I
          > > > will do this, and keep the existing cones off to the side.
          > > >
          > > > there is a non-uniformity occurring in some of the magnets. I was
          > > > careful ahead a time before mounting them, and I used a hall
          > effect
          > > > sensor to measure the gauss on each magnet. Something was amiss,
          > > > perhaps an imbalance in the polarity, and I only measure one
          > pole,
          > > > not both.
          > > >
          > > > Heat test was done, a few weeks back, using a normal oven at 200C.
          > > > Found that about 30 or so gauss was being lost due to heating.
          > > >
          > > > "I'm not sure if its because of the advantages of magnetic
          > uniformity
          > > > or the ability to better ballance larger devices( or something
          > > > entirly different). "
          > > >
          > > > Circular accuracy and proportion is more difficult to achieve
          > (and
          > > > should be achieved) at smaller levels.
          > > > Lucky for me, only one cone is small enough to create a problem,
          > but
          > > > I have duplicated fabrication methods for every cone, same
          > designing
          > > > behind each. I use the same jigs for all cones, and they work.
          > > >
          > > > "This is critical since the dimensions of the pinions govern the
          > > > correct ring ratios to achieve the balanced 3-
          > dimensional 'isotope'
          > > > line."
          > > >
          > > > Still trying to figure out mine as well. I have the dimensions,
          > but I
          > > > don't know why it is used.
          > > >
          > > > "Think about a way to govern the device since David as not yet
          > > > achieved this(we want to see it working, not just a pile of bits
          > on
          > > > the floor ;)and this is now the point of the exercise. Harness
          > the
          > > > technology."
          > > >
          > > > I will be. My stainless steel design is amazingly strong. The
          > frame
          > > > weighs close to about 120 pounds or so. It is rock solid. The
          > cones
          > > > are also strong (except tips can be bent--weakest point). No
          > barrel,
          > > > fully open. The device, when it works, will sweep in the air and
          > > > recycle it, meaning that air will be drawn in from the bottom,
          > > > implosion and vortex at the middle cone, then will be pushed out
          > at
          > > > the top or radiated, then it will bend back down to the bottom to
          > > > begin the cycle again.
          > > >
          > > > Matt
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "gus_styles" <gusstyles@g...>
          > wrote:
          > > > > Hey Matt,
          > > > >
          > > > > It's not a good idea to change the cone magnets for reasons
          > > > > mentioned previously as well as further disruption of the
          > > > uniformity
          > > > > of an already poorly uniformed field on the top of the cone.
          > > > >
          > > > > Unfortunatly, the magnets available create gaps in the magnetic
          > > > > field when arranged in any sort of arc, which will defeat the
          > > > > experiment due to magnetic friction of non-uniformity. Balance
          > is
          > > > > key.
          > > > >
          > > > > Because we can't see your work it's hard to determine exactly
          > what
          > > > > you are doing. Don't place any material in front of the
          > magnets,
          > > > > especially metal banding, steel will provide a much better path
          > for
          > > > > the field then air due to a far higher permeability. This
          > causes
          > > > > the field to pass back to the opposite pole without projecting
          > away
          > > > > from the rim of the cone. Even without the use of a 'ferrous'
          > > > band,
          > > > > distortion will occur in front of the magnets proportionally to
          > the
          > > > > reluctance of the material.
          > > > >
          > > > > As for dimensions, even David has trouble getting them right.
          > He
          > > > > has stated to me numerous times "the size is important, It
          > can't be
          > > > > built small(talking like 8' diameter)". I'm not sure if its
          > > > because
          > > > > of the advantages of magnetic uniformity or the ability to
          > better
          > > > > ballance larger devices( or something entirly different). I'm
          > > > > programming an application which you can have when its finished
          > > > that
          > > > > models the 'tree of life' experiment. You'll be able to adjust
          > all
          > > > > the dimensions until you acheive stability in the model (or
          > even
          > > > > recreate yours to find a configuration that works). I found it
          > is
          > > > > impractical to use trial and error for this device because
          > there is
          > > > > too much interplay. I can now actually model the magnetic
          > forces.
          > > > > The cone should jump up and cling to the ring in the simulator
          > if
          > > > > the dimensions aren't right(like most of us have faught against
          > > > with
          > > > > this experiment). The base of the system is finished ( using
          > three
          > > > > pinions) and the math functions to model correct movements of
          > the
          > > > > platform with an input of an adjustable(x,y,z) force vector
          > applied
          > > > > to the top center of the platform. This is critical since the
          > > > > dimensions of the pinions govern the correct ring ratios to
          > achieve
          > > > > the balanced 3-dimensional 'isotope' line.
          > > > >
          > > > > I believe there is a 'magic ratio' of dimensions which one of
          > us
          > > > may
          > > > > find fooling around with the simulator. Construction can then
          > be
          > > > > done easily (using lathes and metal spinning) to create a
          > balanced
          > > > > model which when loaded, still keeps perfect balance through
          > > > > the 'isotope' line since the dimensions will need not be
          > adjusted.
          > > > > In fact system should be made without adjustments. Balance,
          > from
          > > > > loaded to unloaded without adjusting keeper rings is critical
          > for
          > > > > mass(inertia)-> weight-> speed-> power (A -> F).
          > > > >
          > > > > Think about a way to govern the device since David as not yet
          > > > > achieved this(we want to see it working, not just a pile of
          > bits on
          > > > > the floor ;)and this is now the point of the exercise. Harness
          > the
          > > > > technology.
          > > > >
          > > > > David used electrical tape to hold his magnets on the rim (not
          > > > > really a final solution but it appearently worked for him),
          > maybe
          > > > > good for a simple test before too much work.
          > > > >
          > > > > Godspeed,
          > > > >
          > > > > Gus
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "David K" <dkouk@b...> wrote:
          > > > > > Hi Matt,
          > > > > > I am not sure if having the magnets at an angle is
          > right.
          > > > > When
          > > > > > I made my 45gd I had the m perpendicular and got good
          > results. I
          > > > > > remember that in order to get the cones to sit right I had to
          > > > > adjust the
          > > > > > diameter of the outer ring so that the centre line of the rim
          > of
          > > > > the
          > > > > > cone sat just above the centre line of the rim or the outer
          > > > ring.
          > > > > I am
          > > > > > not sure if your stand would allow this adjustment though.
          > The
          > > > > other
          > > > > > options are to have weaker magnets or as I tried, cover the
          > > > > magnets in
          > > > > > metal to reduce their strength. Also I found that it
          > involved a
          > > > > fair
          > > > > > bit of trial and error adjustment of the magnet heights to
          > get
          > > > this
          > > > > > right.
          > > > > > Anyway as I said it might not be right but I might be
          > wrong
          > > > > > there. I remember talking to Justin about this a few years
          > ago.
          > > > > In the
          > > > > > end I think it makes the adjustment harder and I think it
          > would
          > > > > make the
          > > > > > cones jump out of place easier.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Regards
          > > > > > David K
          > > > > >
          > > > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > > > From: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
          > > > [mailto:hameltech@yahoogroups.com]
          > > > > On
          > > > > > Behalf Of Matt Rock
          > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 10:25 AM
          > > > > > To: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > > Subject: [hameltech] Re: 11112: new direction with cones a
          > > > > possibility
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Hi Georg,
          > > > > >
          > > > > > the difference is that the present one's have magnets mounted
          > > > > > perpendicular to the z-axis of the cone, in other words I
          > have a
          > > > > > metal strap or band going around the rim which is 90 degrees
          > to
          > > > > the
          > > > > > top of the cone.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > The old cones, did not have this band and the magnets were
          > glued
          > > > > to
          > > > > > the surface of the cone, hence, the angle of the cone.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Matt
          > > > > >
          > > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Georg Gungle"
          > <gunglepus@y...>
          > > > > > wrote:
          > > > > > > What is the difference in the placement of magnets between
          > your
          > > > > old
          > > > > > > cone and the new cone?
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Georg
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Rock"
          > <mattihorn@i...>
          > > > > > wrote:
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > Still at it.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > I think I made a slight error in magnet placement on the
          > > > cones.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > I have been having great trouble in getting the the
          > middle
          > > > cone
          > > > > > to
          > > > > > > > rest in the magnetic fields. as well as trouble in bottom
          > and
          > > > > top
          > > > > > > > (less than the middle, they do find rest, but no real
          > action--
          > > > > ).
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > So I grabbed a small cone, that I was working on, and
          > left the
          > > > > > band
          > > > > > > > off and attached magnets as normal (this was done on my
          > old
          > > > > > aluminum
          > > > > > > > system which I had built from 2003). that would be the
          > cone
          > > > > > surface,
          > > > > > > > angle, is where I would put the magnets.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > Tha action I got from small cone was exactly what I am
          > looking
          > > > > > for, a
          > > > > > > > slowly lessening sustain on the movement/vibration
          > occurred,
          > > > > > which
          > > > > > > > lasted up to about 10 minutes. bingo
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > I am going to go ahead and switch all cones over to this
          > > > > > > > configuration since it is favourable. That means I may be
          > > > > > building
          > > > > > > > two new cones if I can not retrofit the original two.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > Matt
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Header Codes
          > > > > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
          > > > > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
          > > > > > 11113: David Hamel reports
          > > > > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
          > > > > > OT: "Off Topic"
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Header Codes
          > > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
          > > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
          > > > 11113: David Hamel reports
          > > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
          > > > OT: "Off Topic"
          > > >
          > > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
          > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ________________________________
          > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > >
          > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
          > > >
          > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > >
          > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service.
        • Matt Rock
          thanks Justin, I understand what you are saying. even fields due tot he parallel position of magnets. However, something interesting happens with them on an
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 8, 2005
            thanks Justin, I understand what you are saying. even fields due tot
            he parallel position of magnets.
            However, something interesting happens with them on an angle, hard to
            describe, but the feel is definitely more stable, less accuracy on
            rim position required. SOmething I noticed in my aluminum system, was
            that all cones sat nicely in their magnetic fields.

            the skins are nearly complete for the middle and bottom. I will be
            doing the tips and inserts tomorrow and then finishing of the cones.

            Matt


            --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "jszymanek2000"
            <jszymanek2000@y...> wrote:
            > Matt,
            >
            > IMHO the 90 degrees arrangment for the magnets is better because it
            > gives you a better "magnetic snake" in the gap. It is also how the
            > Djed shows it. However it is not all roses. The balance can be extra
            > tricky. The fact that it is unstable is good, because that is what
            > drives it. But you have to get it setup so it is just tasting the
            > instability on the edges of the vibration but it stable in the
            middle.
            >
            > My point is don't disregard it. But I would recommend throwing
            > together something crude first to try and get a feel for how it
            > behaves. I think it is important to look into different
            configurations
            > as the pole on pole facing each other gives a weak magnetic snake if
            > anything. And the "magnetic snake" is where I believe the energy
            comes
            > from.
            >
            > Justin
            >
            >
            > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Rock" <mattihorn@i...>
            wrote:
            > > thanks Trevor.
            > >
            > > I know of the equilateral position in relation to movement.
            > > Glad someone brought it out from the closet.
            > > The other stuff, I am aware of thanks :)
            > >
            > > I don't think it will explode, she's strong, considerably
            matching
            > > what David is doing on his site and in some ways surpassing (as
            in
            > > strength in parts).
            > >
            > > Looking forward to the Universe pouring in. In fact, I can no
            longer
            > > wait.
            > >
            > > Thanks
            > >
            > > Matt
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Smouter <gusstyles@g...>
            > > wrote:
            > > > It should work without any air at all. Once you stabalize the
            > > > oscillator, the magnetic fields should be able to keep the
            system
            > > > tight to the center line. Stronger the magnets the better, add
            > > weight
            > > > to the cones to give them some more inertia. Once you load the
            > > system
            > > > with the top magnet the cones should contort from straight to
            > > > disjointed according to the isotropic line. I have not been
            involed
            > > > with many discussions with other people regarding this
            isotropic
            > > line.
            > > > I'm not sure how many people realize that the line must take
            the
            > > > shape of an equalaterial triangle from above, hence the use of
            the
            > > > lower pinions. Thats very important, no center line of any
            cone
            > > must
            > > > cross the center line of the outer system. The three cones
            will
            > > fall
            > > > around that line in a circular orbit.
            > > >
            > > > If the system is balenced, loading will mobilize the cones
            combined
            > > > inertia into the characteristic wobble. From there it will then
            > > > achieve the pre-load equalibrium dynamically by slowyly
            converting
            > > the
            > > > amplitude of the system into oscillatory frequency.
            Theoretically,
            > > > infite amplitude into infite frequency, like spinning a coin on
            a
            > > > table - modelling the coins behavior draws to a conclusion that
            what
            > > > appears to be stopped is really an infite frequency but lacking
            in
            > > > amplitude. The high frequecny wobble of the magnets is what
            creates
            > > > flashes of colored lights that David talks about. The pressure
            of
            > > the
            > > > top magnet is nothing compared to the strenght of a little
            weight
            > > > caught in a perfectly stable wobble.
            > > >
            > > > You must be able to lower the frequency very fast, sealing the
            > > > container removes damping, opening the vent dampes the system.
            At
            > > or
            > > > near the 'characteristic' frequency you start to 'tune into' and
            > > > therefore press on the universe. The universe pushes back much
            > > > harder, if the system achieves full interactive resonnace then
            you
            > > can
            > > > kiss it goodbye (and for safety sake hopefully you are not
            anywhere
            > > > near by). Think about control before even trying to let it go,
            > > > otherwise you'll move into David's house to help him on his and
            > > we'll
            > > > still be waiting for ours to explode. ;-)
            > > >
            > > > On 6/8/05, Matt Rock <mattihorn@i...> wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > Very good thoughts Gus, David, and others.
            > > > >
            > > > > I went for a drive and pondered on this.
            > > > > My situation may be corrected in different ways.
            > > > >
            > > > > I can either get ceramic #1 magnets which have about 2/3rds
            the
            > > gauss
            > > > > rating of ceramic #8 or go to ceramic #5 which close to about
            3/4
            > > > > strength of ceramic #8 (what I am using).
            > > > >
            > > > > or I can try the mounting on the angle at the edge of each
            cone,
            > > I
            > > > > will do this, and keep the existing cones off to the side.
            > > > >
            > > > > there is a non-uniformity occurring in some of the magnets. I
            was
            > > > > careful ahead a time before mounting them, and I used a hall
            > > effect
            > > > > sensor to measure the gauss on each magnet. Something was
            amiss,
            > > > > perhaps an imbalance in the polarity, and I only measure one
            > > pole,
            > > > > not both.
            > > > >
            > > > > Heat test was done, a few weeks back, using a normal oven at
            200C.
            > > > > Found that about 30 or so gauss was being lost due to heating.
            > > > >
            > > > > "I'm not sure if its because of the advantages of magnetic
            > > uniformity
            > > > > or the ability to better ballance larger devices( or
            something
            > > > > entirly different). "
            > > > >
            > > > > Circular accuracy and proportion is more difficult to achieve
            > > (and
            > > > > should be achieved) at smaller levels.
            > > > > Lucky for me, only one cone is small enough to create a
            problem,
            > > but
            > > > > I have duplicated fabrication methods for every cone, same
            > > designing
            > > > > behind each. I use the same jigs for all cones, and they work.
            > > > >
            > > > > "This is critical since the dimensions of the pinions govern
            the
            > > > > correct ring ratios to achieve the balanced 3-
            > > dimensional 'isotope'
            > > > > line."
            > > > >
            > > > > Still trying to figure out mine as well. I have the
            dimensions,
            > > but I
            > > > > don't know why it is used.
            > > > >
            > > > > "Think about a way to govern the device since David as not
            yet
            > > > > achieved this(we want to see it working, not just a pile of
            bits
            > > on
            > > > > the floor ;)and this is now the point of the exercise.
            Harness
            > > the
            > > > > technology."
            > > > >
            > > > > I will be. My stainless steel design is amazingly strong. The
            > > frame
            > > > > weighs close to about 120 pounds or so. It is rock solid. The
            > > cones
            > > > > are also strong (except tips can be bent--weakest point). No
            > > barrel,
            > > > > fully open. The device, when it works, will sweep in the air
            and
            > > > > recycle it, meaning that air will be drawn in from the
            bottom,
            > > > > implosion and vortex at the middle cone, then will be pushed
            out
            > > at
            > > > > the top or radiated, then it will bend back down to the
            bottom to
            > > > > begin the cycle again.
            > > > >
            > > > > Matt
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "gus_styles"
            <gusstyles@g...>
            > > wrote:
            > > > > > Hey Matt,
            > > > > >
            > > > > > It's not a good idea to change the cone magnets for reasons
            > > > > > mentioned previously as well as further disruption of the
            > > > > uniformity
            > > > > > of an already poorly uniformed field on the top of the cone.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Unfortunatly, the magnets available create gaps in the
            magnetic
            > > > > > field when arranged in any sort of arc, which will defeat
            the
            > > > > > experiment due to magnetic friction of non-uniformity.
            Balance
            > > is
            > > > > > key.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Because we can't see your work it's hard to determine
            exactly
            > > what
            > > > > > you are doing. Don't place any material in front of the
            > > magnets,
            > > > > > especially metal banding, steel will provide a much better
            path
            > > for
            > > > > > the field then air due to a far higher permeability. This
            > > causes
            > > > > > the field to pass back to the opposite pole without
            projecting
            > > away
            > > > > > from the rim of the cone. Even without the use of
            a 'ferrous'
            > > > > band,
            > > > > > distortion will occur in front of the magnets
            proportionally to
            > > the
            > > > > > reluctance of the material.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > As for dimensions, even David has trouble getting them
            right.
            > > He
            > > > > > has stated to me numerous times "the size is important, It
            > > can't be
            > > > > > built small(talking like 8' diameter)". I'm not sure if
            its
            > > > > because
            > > > > > of the advantages of magnetic uniformity or the ability to
            > > better
            > > > > > ballance larger devices( or something entirly different).
            I'm
            > > > > > programming an application which you can have when its
            finished
            > > > > that
            > > > > > models the 'tree of life' experiment. You'll be able to
            adjust
            > > all
            > > > > > the dimensions until you acheive stability in the model (or
            > > even
            > > > > > recreate yours to find a configuration that works). I
            found it
            > > is
            > > > > > impractical to use trial and error for this device because
            > > there is
            > > > > > too much interplay. I can now actually model the magnetic
            > > forces.
            > > > > > The cone should jump up and cling to the ring in the
            simulator
            > > if
            > > > > > the dimensions aren't right(like most of us have faught
            against
            > > > > with
            > > > > > this experiment). The base of the system is finished (
            using
            > > three
            > > > > > pinions) and the math functions to model correct movements
            of
            > > the
            > > > > > platform with an input of an adjustable(x,y,z) force vector
            > > applied
            > > > > > to the top center of the platform. This is critical since
            the
            > > > > > dimensions of the pinions govern the correct ring ratios to
            > > achieve
            > > > > > the balanced 3-dimensional 'isotope' line.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > I believe there is a 'magic ratio' of dimensions which one
            of
            > > us
            > > > > may
            > > > > > find fooling around with the simulator. Construction can
            then
            > > be
            > > > > > done easily (using lathes and metal spinning) to create a
            > > balanced
            > > > > > model which when loaded, still keeps perfect balance
            through
            > > > > > the 'isotope' line since the dimensions will need not be
            > > adjusted.
            > > > > > In fact system should be made without adjustments.
            Balance,
            > > from
            > > > > > loaded to unloaded without adjusting keeper rings is
            critical
            > > for
            > > > > > mass(inertia)-> weight-> speed-> power (A -> F).
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Think about a way to govern the device since David as not
            yet
            > > > > > achieved this(we want to see it working, not just a pile of
            > > bits on
            > > > > > the floor ;)and this is now the point of the exercise.
            Harness
            > > the
            > > > > > technology.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > David used electrical tape to hold his magnets on the rim
            (not
            > > > > > really a final solution but it appearently worked for him),
            > > maybe
            > > > > > good for a simple test before too much work.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Godspeed,
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Gus
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "David K" <dkouk@b...>
            wrote:
            > > > > > > Hi Matt,
            > > > > > > I am not sure if having the magnets at an angle is
            > > right.
            > > > > > When
            > > > > > > I made my 45gd I had the m perpendicular and got good
            > > results. I
            > > > > > > remember that in order to get the cones to sit right I
            had to
            > > > > > adjust the
            > > > > > > diameter of the outer ring so that the centre line of the
            rim
            > > of
            > > > > > the
            > > > > > > cone sat just above the centre line of the rim or the
            outer
            > > > > ring.
            > > > > > I am
            > > > > > > not sure if your stand would allow this adjustment
            though.
            > > The
            > > > > > other
            > > > > > > options are to have weaker magnets or as I tried, cover
            the
            > > > > > magnets in
            > > > > > > metal to reduce their strength. Also I found that it
            > > involved a
            > > > > > fair
            > > > > > > bit of trial and error adjustment of the magnet heights
            to
            > > get
            > > > > this
            > > > > > > right.
            > > > > > > Anyway as I said it might not be right but I might
            be
            > > wrong
            > > > > > > there. I remember talking to Justin about this a few
            years
            > > ago.
            > > > > > In the
            > > > > > > end I think it makes the adjustment harder and I think it
            > > would
            > > > > > make the
            > > > > > > cones jump out of place easier.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Regards
            > > > > > > David K
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > > > > From: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > [mailto:hameltech@yahoogroups.com]
            > > > > > On
            > > > > > > Behalf Of Matt Rock
            > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 10:25 AM
            > > > > > > To: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > > > Subject: [hameltech] Re: 11112: new direction with cones
            a
            > > > > > possibility
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Hi Georg,
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > the difference is that the present one's have magnets
            mounted
            > > > > > > perpendicular to the z-axis of the cone, in other words I
            > > have a
            > > > > > > metal strap or band going around the rim which is 90
            degrees
            > > to
            > > > > > the
            > > > > > > top of the cone.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > The old cones, did not have this band and the magnets
            were
            > > glued
            > > > > > to
            > > > > > > the surface of the cone, hence, the angle of the cone.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Matt
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Georg Gungle"
            > > <gunglepus@y...>
            > > > > > > wrote:
            > > > > > > > What is the difference in the placement of magnets
            between
            > > your
            > > > > > old
            > > > > > > > cone and the new cone?
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > Georg
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Rock"
            > > <mattihorn@i...>
            > > > > > > wrote:
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > Still at it.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > I think I made a slight error in magnet placement on
            the
            > > > > cones.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > I have been having great trouble in getting the the
            > > middle
            > > > > cone
            > > > > > > to
            > > > > > > > > rest in the magnetic fields. as well as trouble in
            bottom
            > > and
            > > > > > top
            > > > > > > > > (less than the middle, they do find rest, but no real
            > > action--
            > > > > > ).
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > So I grabbed a small cone, that I was working on, and
            > > left the
            > > > > > > band
            > > > > > > > > off and attached magnets as normal (this was done on
            my
            > > old
            > > > > > > aluminum
            > > > > > > > > system which I had built from 2003). that would be
            the
            > > cone
            > > > > > > surface,
            > > > > > > > > angle, is where I would put the magnets.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > Tha action I got from small cone was exactly what I
            am
            > > looking
            > > > > > > for, a
            > > > > > > > > slowly lessening sustain on the movement/vibration
            > > occurred,
            > > > > > > which
            > > > > > > > > lasted up to about 10 minutes. bingo
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > I am going to go ahead and switch all cones over to
            this
            > > > > > > > > configuration since it is favourable. That means I
            may be
            > > > > > > building
            > > > > > > > > two new cones if I can not retrofit the original two.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > Matt
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Header Codes
            > > > > > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
            > > > > > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
            > > > > > > 11113: David Hamel reports
            > > > > > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
            > > > > > > OT: "Off Topic"
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > Header Codes
            > > > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
            > > > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
            > > > > 11113: David Hamel reports
            > > > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
            > > > > OT: "Off Topic"
            > > > >
            > > > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > ________________________________
            > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > > >
            > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
            > > > >
            > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > > > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > > >
            > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > > Service.
          • Trevor Smouter
            Oh i m not questioning the strength of your setup i simply mean to say the every design Mr. Hamel built either destroyed itself or flew away. He didn t have an
            Message 5 of 19 , Jun 8, 2005
              Oh i'm not questioning the strength of your setup i simply mean to say
              the every design Mr. Hamel built either destroyed itself or flew away.
              He didn't have an idle control I guess. ;-) I don't question
              wheather the technology works, I know it does.

              Somehow I heard about David and called 411 to see if his number was
              listed, it was and minutes later I had a 45 min conversation with him
              about what he was doing. "You got to come here and check this stuff
              out" he exclaimed. That Sunday I spent the day at his house going
              over everthing. He said to me, I should buy the 'Granite man and the
              Butterfly' book he was selling because everything was in there. At
              the time, I was a poor student and didn't have any money on me. He
              told me to just take the book, I could pay him back next time I came
              by. I have never met a more selfless man in my life, good natured,
              trusting and especially the care he gives his wife. He has no reason,
              motive or benfit other then his noble cause.

              Over the years I have built a number of models, the last was a stacked
              system similar to Davids current project, which used machined aluminum
              pinions(two piece) which bolts on either side of ring magnets. This
              was an attempt at building a bottom plate that wobbles to replace the
              granite spherical pinions. Each aluminum pinion had a divot on the
              top and bottom and was surrounded by a ring magnet around its equator.
              The top and bottom holders of each pinion where made almost exactly
              like the pinion itself except the aluminum body only used half, which
              bolted a ring magnet down to a granite tile and instead of a divot, it
              had an adjustable screw which the pinion itself would perch on. The
              bottom ring magnet and the ring magnet on the pinion were in repulsion
              which keeps the system straight up and down. The top triangular
              granite slab contained the exact piece on the bottom, inverted with
              the magnet reversed to oppose the pinions magnet from the top. There
              were three pinion sets in all.

              This was developed to not only replace the balls and cups but also was
              an experimental first level for a system like David's. However, I now
              know that horizontal displacement of the platform must be accompanied
              by a raise in hight to counter the lowering of the side of the cone
              relative to its keeper ring because the system must stay balenced over
              the entire displacement of the upper magnet. My original proto's
              keeper rings had to be adjusted while I was lower the top magnet - not
              only too much work but it is actually a symptom of a system which is
              not built right. Secondly, no sustainable oscillator can have sharp
              points seated in divots since the coefficient of kinetic friction is
              extremly high, thats why the cones don't jump off of each other. What
              seems like low friction is really the worst case when the device is
              running at optimum. But who cares, Davids doesn't have this problem,
              so in the end we are just trying to prove a point.

              For the pinions I built, machining a ball and socket type joint is
              what needs to be done for it to be right but then it can't easily be
              adjustable. Thats when I decided to actually model the system.

              I designed a system to control the oscillator which is a real time -
              very accurate controller which uses a microprocessor to control the
              speed. Over the bottom magnet three copper coils are placed with each
              their centers directly above the edge of the magnet spaced evenly with
              120 dergess seperating each one. The system basically generates three
              phase power which damps the oscillations. A PIC microcontroller
              counts the frequency of the induced voltage on one of the coils which
              is exactly the frequency of the systems oscillations. When the system
              is reaching its predetermined max frequency which is programmed into
              microcontroller, it starts to pulse-width modulate MOSFET transistors
              which are placed accross each coil into a resistive load. This closed
              loop system is basically a servo oscillator. The electronics would
              have to be placed remotely from the system and speed control would
              have to initiate prior to reaching a frequency at which the system
              would be overloaded which is easy to accomplish using the
              microcontroller. Davids original 'tree of life' contained a 'copper
              field' in the plans in between the bottom magnets. Who knows if my
              control system will work before there is a working model that needs to
              be controlled - large amounts of electrical noise could interfere with
              the processor.

              Gus

              On 6/8/05, Matt Rock <mattihorn@...> wrote:
              > thanks Trevor.
              >
              > I know of the equilateral position in relation to movement.
              > Glad someone brought it out from the closet.
              > The other stuff, I am aware of thanks :)
              >
              > I don't think it will explode, she's strong, considerably matching
              > what David is doing on his site and in some ways surpassing (as in
              > strength in parts).
              >
              > Looking forward to the Universe pouring in. In fact, I can no longer
              > wait.
              >
              > Thanks
              >
              > Matt
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Smouter <gusstyles@g...>
              >
              > wrote:
              > > It should work without any air at all. Once you stabalize the
              > > oscillator, the magnetic fields should be able to keep the system
              > > tight to the center line. Stronger the magnets the better, add
              > weight
              > > to the cones to give them some more inertia. Once you load the
              > system
              > > with the top magnet the cones should contort from straight to
              > > disjointed according to the isotropic line. I have not been involed
              > > with many discussions with other people regarding this isotropic
              > line.
              > > I'm not sure how many people realize that the line must take the
              > > shape of an equalaterial triangle from above, hence the use of the
              > > lower pinions. Thats very important, no center line of any cone
              > must
              > > cross the center line of the outer system. The three cones will
              > fall
              > > around that line in a circular orbit.
              > >
              > > If the system is balenced, loading will mobilize the cones combined
              > > inertia into the characteristic wobble. From there it will then
              > > achieve the pre-load equalibrium dynamically by slowyly converting
              > the
              > > amplitude of the system into oscillatory frequency. Theoretically,
              > > infite amplitude into infite frequency, like spinning a coin on a
              > > table - modelling the coins behavior draws to a conclusion that what
              > > appears to be stopped is really an infite frequency but lacking in
              > > amplitude. The high frequecny wobble of the magnets is what creates
              > > flashes of colored lights that David talks about. The pressure of
              > the
              > > top magnet is nothing compared to the strenght of a little weight
              > > caught in a perfectly stable wobble.
              > >
              > > You must be able to lower the frequency very fast, sealing the
              > > container removes damping, opening the vent dampes the system. At
              > or
              > > near the 'characteristic' frequency you start to 'tune into' and
              > > therefore press on the universe. The universe pushes back much
              > > harder, if the system achieves full interactive resonnace then you
              > can
              > > kiss it goodbye (and for safety sake hopefully you are not anywhere
              > > near by). Think about control before even trying to let it go,
              > > otherwise you'll move into David's house to help him on his and
              > we'll
              > > still be waiting for ours to explode. ;-)
              > >
              > > On 6/8/05, Matt Rock <mattihorn@i...> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Very good thoughts Gus, David, and others.
              > > >
              > > > I went for a drive and pondered on this.
              > > > My situation may be corrected in different ways.
              > > >
              > > > I can either get ceramic #1 magnets which have about 2/3rds the
              > gauss
              > > > rating of ceramic #8 or go to ceramic #5 which close to about 3/4
              > > > strength of ceramic #8 (what I am using).
              > > >
              > > > or I can try the mounting on the angle at the edge of each cone,
              > I
              > > > will do this, and keep the existing cones off to the side.
              > > >
              > > > there is a non-uniformity occurring in some of the magnets. I was
              > > > careful ahead a time before mounting them, and I used a hall
              > effect
              > > > sensor to measure the gauss on each magnet. Something was amiss,
              > > > perhaps an imbalance in the polarity, and I only measure one
              > pole,
              > > > not both.
              > > >
              > > > Heat test was done, a few weeks back, using a normal oven at 200C.
              > > > Found that about 30 or so gauss was being lost due to heating.
              > > >
              > > > "I'm not sure if its because of the advantages of magnetic
              > uniformity
              > > > or the ability to better ballance larger devices( or something
              > > > entirly different). "
              > > >
              > > > Circular accuracy and proportion is more difficult to achieve
              > (and
              > > > should be achieved) at smaller levels.
              > > > Lucky for me, only one cone is small enough to create a problem,
              > but
              > > > I have duplicated fabrication methods for every cone, same
              > designing
              > > > behind each. I use the same jigs for all cones, and they work.
              > > >
              > > > "This is critical since the dimensions of the pinions govern the
              > > > correct ring ratios to achieve the balanced 3-
              > dimensional 'isotope'
              > > > line."
              > > >
              > > > Still trying to figure out mine as well. I have the dimensions,
              > but I
              > > > don't know why it is used.
              > > >
              > > > "Think about a way to govern the device since David as not yet
              > > > achieved this(we want to see it working, not just a pile of bits
              > on
              > > > the floor ;)and this is now the point of the exercise. Harness
              > the
              > > > technology."
              > > >
              > > > I will be. My stainless steel design is amazingly strong. The
              > frame
              > > > weighs close to about 120 pounds or so. It is rock solid. The
              > cones
              > > > are also strong (except tips can be bent--weakest point). No
              > barrel,
              > > > fully open. The device, when it works, will sweep in the air and
              > > > recycle it, meaning that air will be drawn in from the bottom,
              > > > implosion and vortex at the middle cone, then will be pushed out
              > at
              > > > the top or radiated, then it will bend back down to the bottom to
              > > > begin the cycle again.
              > > >
              > > > Matt
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "gus_styles" <gusstyles@g...>
              > wrote:
              > > > > Hey Matt,
              > > > >
              > > > > It's not a good idea to change the cone magnets for reasons
              > > > > mentioned previously as well as further disruption of the
              > > > uniformity
              > > > > of an already poorly uniformed field on the top of the cone.
              > > > >
              > > > > Unfortunatly, the magnets available create gaps in the magnetic
              > > > > field when arranged in any sort of arc, which will defeat the
              > > > > experiment due to magnetic friction of non-uniformity. Balance
              > is
              > > > > key.
              > > > >
              > > > > Because we can't see your work it's hard to determine exactly
              > what
              > > > > you are doing. Don't place any material in front of the
              > magnets,
              > > > > especially metal banding, steel will provide a much better path
              > for
              > > > > the field then air due to a far higher permeability. This
              > causes
              > > > > the field to pass back to the opposite pole without projecting
              > away
              > > > > from the rim of the cone. Even without the use of a 'ferrous'
              > > > band,
              > > > > distortion will occur in front of the magnets proportionally to
              > the
              > > > > reluctance of the material.
              > > > >
              > > > > As for dimensions, even David has trouble getting them right.
              > He
              > > > > has stated to me numerous times "the size is important, It
              > can't be
              > > > > built small(talking like 8' diameter)". I'm not sure if its
              > > > because
              > > > > of the advantages of magnetic uniformity or the ability to
              > better
              > > > > ballance larger devices( or something entirly different). I'm
              > > > > programming an application which you can have when its finished
              > > > that
              > > > > models the 'tree of life' experiment. You'll be able to adjust
              > all
              > > > > the dimensions until you acheive stability in the model (or
              > even
              > > > > recreate yours to find a configuration that works). I found it
              > is
              > > > > impractical to use trial and error for this device because
              > there is
              > > > > too much interplay. I can now actually model the magnetic
              > forces.
              > > > > The cone should jump up and cling to the ring in the simulator
              > if
              > > > > the dimensions aren't right(like most of us have faught against
              > > > with
              > > > > this experiment). The base of the system is finished ( using
              > three
              > > > > pinions) and the math functions to model correct movements of
              > the
              > > > > platform with an input of an adjustable(x,y,z) force vector
              > applied
              > > > > to the top center of the platform. This is critical since the
              > > > > dimensions of the pinions govern the correct ring ratios to
              > achieve
              > > > > the balanced 3-dimensional 'isotope' line.
              > > > >
              > > > > I believe there is a 'magic ratio' of dimensions which one of
              > us
              > > > may
              > > > > find fooling around with the simulator. Construction can then
              > be
              > > > > done easily (using lathes and metal spinning) to create a
              > balanced
              > > > > model which when loaded, still keeps perfect balance through
              > > > > the 'isotope' line since the dimensions will need not be
              > adjusted.
              > > > > In fact system should be made without adjustments. Balance,
              > from
              > > > > loaded to unloaded without adjusting keeper rings is critical
              > for
              > > > > mass(inertia)-> weight-> speed-> power (A -> F).
              > > > >
              > > > > Think about a way to govern the device since David as not yet
              > > > > achieved this(we want to see it working, not just a pile of
              > bits on
              > > > > the floor ;)and this is now the point of the exercise. Harness
              > the
              > > > > technology.
              > > > >
              > > > > David used electrical tape to hold his magnets on the rim (not
              > > > > really a final solution but it appearently worked for him),
              > maybe
              > > > > good for a simple test before too much work.
              > > > >
              > > > > Godspeed,
              > > > >
              > > > > Gus
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "David K" <dkouk@b...> wrote:
              > > > > > Hi Matt,
              > > > > > I am not sure if having the magnets at an angle is
              > right.
              > > > > When
              > > > > > I made my 45gd I had the m perpendicular and got good
              > results. I
              > > > > > remember that in order to get the cones to sit right I had to
              > > > > adjust the
              > > > > > diameter of the outer ring so that the centre line of the rim
              > of
              > > > > the
              > > > > > cone sat just above the centre line of the rim or the outer
              > > > ring.
              > > > > I am
              > > > > > not sure if your stand would allow this adjustment though.
              > The
              > > > > other
              > > > > > options are to have weaker magnets or as I tried, cover the
              > > > > magnets in
              > > > > > metal to reduce their strength. Also I found that it
              > involved a
              > > > > fair
              > > > > > bit of trial and error adjustment of the magnet heights to
              > get
              > > > this
              > > > > > right.
              > > > > > Anyway as I said it might not be right but I might be
              > wrong
              > > > > > there. I remember talking to Justin about this a few years
              > ago.
              > > > > In the
              > > > > > end I think it makes the adjustment harder and I think it
              > would
              > > > > make the
              > > > > > cones jump out of place easier.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Regards
              > > > > > David K
              > > > > >
              > > > > > -----Original Message-----
              > > > > > From: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
              > > > [mailto:hameltech@yahoogroups.com]
              > > > > On
              > > > > > Behalf Of Matt Rock
              > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 10:25 AM
              > > > > > To: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
              > > > > > Subject: [hameltech] Re: 11112: new direction with cones a
              > > > > possibility
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Hi Georg,
              > > > > >
              > > > > > the difference is that the present one's have magnets mounted
              > > > > > perpendicular to the z-axis of the cone, in other words I
              > have a
              > > > > > metal strap or band going around the rim which is 90 degrees
              > to
              > > > > the
              > > > > > top of the cone.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > The old cones, did not have this band and the magnets were
              > glued
              > > > > to
              > > > > > the surface of the cone, hence, the angle of the cone.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Matt
              > > > > >
              > > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Georg Gungle"
              > <gunglepus@y...>
              > > > > > wrote:
              > > > > > > What is the difference in the placement of magnets between
              > your
              > > > > old
              > > > > > > cone and the new cone?
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Georg
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Rock"
              > <mattihorn@i...>
              > > > > > wrote:
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Still at it.
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > I think I made a slight error in magnet placement on the
              > > > cones.
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > I have been having great trouble in getting the the
              > middle
              > > > cone
              > > > > > to
              > > > > > > > rest in the magnetic fields. as well as trouble in bottom
              > and
              > > > > top
              > > > > > > > (less than the middle, they do find rest, but no real
              > action--
              > > > > ).
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > So I grabbed a small cone, that I was working on, and
              > left the
              > > > > > band
              > > > > > > > off and attached magnets as normal (this was done on my
              > old
              > > > > > aluminum
              > > > > > > > system which I had built from 2003). that would be the
              > cone
              > > > > > surface,
              > > > > > > > angle, is where I would put the magnets.
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Tha action I got from small cone was exactly what I am
              > looking
              > > > > > for, a
              > > > > > > > slowly lessening sustain on the movement/vibration
              > occurred,
              > > > > > which
              > > > > > > > lasted up to about 10 minutes. bingo
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > I am going to go ahead and switch all cones over to this
              > > > > > > > configuration since it is favourable. That means I may be
              > > > > > building
              > > > > > > > two new cones if I can not retrofit the original two.
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Matt
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Header Codes
              > > > > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
              > > > > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
              > > > > > 11113: David Hamel reports
              > > > > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
              > > > > > OT: "Off Topic"
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
              > > > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > > > > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > > > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Header Codes
              > > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
              > > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
              > > > 11113: David Hamel reports
              > > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
              > > > OT: "Off Topic"
              > > >
              > > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
              > > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > ________________________________
              > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > >
              > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
              > > >
              > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > > > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > > >
              > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              > Service.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Header Codes
              > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
              > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
              > 11113: David Hamel reports
              > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
              > OT: "Off Topic"
              >
              > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
              > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Matt Rock
              However, I now know that horizontal displacement of the platform must be accompanied by a raise in height to counter the lowering of the side of the cone
              Message 6 of 19 , Jun 9, 2005
                "However, I now know that horizontal displacement of the platform
                must be accompanied by a raise in height to counter the lowering of
                the side of the cone relative to its keeper ring because the system
                must stay balenced over the entire displacement of the upper magnet."

                Yes, that is why we must deploy sacred geometry to all aspects of the
                design of the isotope line, the geometry takes care of these things.
                The osc table is a harmonic in the balls at about 3 orders down from
                the top cone. The cup is another harmonic adjacent to the ball. The
                osc table itself is not a harmonic, but is the same as the top cone,
                however the placement of balls and cups are based upon a mathematical
                placement in relation to sacred geometry.

                "The electronics would have to be placed remotely from the system and
                speed control would have to initiate prior to reaching a frequency at
                which the system would be overloaded which is easy to accomplish
                using the microcontroller. "

                I think I understand what you are saying, Gus, that you'd use the
                coil to send pulses back into the coils to create magnetic fields to
                oppose the magnets in attraction, to somewhat control the base osc
                table.
                Of course, the idea, is to let it run free until resonance, and then
                I would presume your coils would allow you to shut the system down by
                putting an interference into the bottom table.

                I was thinking, in order to shut my system down, that I would throw
                heavy bricks at it :) no...no....
                or water.... (kidding of course).

                "Who knows if my control system will work before there is a working
                model that needs to be controlled - large amounts of electrical noise
                could interfere with the processor."

                Yes, the magnetic field will get big, but how strong it is, also the
                ions being created, will be with the magnetic field.

                I would say perhaps that another few magnets, which are sufficiently
                powerful enough should be kept away from the system and then swung
                into one or all three cones simultaneously to bring in a distortion
                to the magnetic fields on the rings. This would perhaps shut down one
                or all cones. It would make sense to sue a magnet, since the system
                is magnetic, less reliability on electronics, since we know the
                energy systems behind the isotope line and electronics are not
                compatible.

                Or place a high strength magnet below the osc table, bring it upward
                to mingle with the magnets in the table, and cause an interference.

                Several ways to it, I would say, with magnets, rather than
                electronics.

                For myself, I have very large 8 inch magnets, high power that I could
                use, above the top cone. Bring it down when and if the system reaches
                resonance.

                Matt
              • Trevor Smouter
                David says you can t stop it once it has started. To do so would destroy it. You can only throttle it down. What I was saying about the coils is like taking
                Message 7 of 19 , Jun 9, 2005
                  David says you can't stop it once it has started. To do so would
                  destroy it. You can only throttle it down.

                  What I was saying about the coils is like taking a DC motor(stepper or
                  whatever), spinning the shaft and then shorting out its wires. It
                  gets incredibly hard to turn. A magnetic field passes easily through
                  a copper coil that is open. Shorting the coil's leads together allows
                  current to flow during iduction which basically creates heat in the
                  windings.

                  Like those bikes that demonstrate electrical generation, peddling is
                  easy until you turn on the light. Then it becomes very difficult.
                  You can't get something for nothing... Ever.

                  Gus

                  On 6/9/05, Matt Rock <mattihorn@...> wrote:
                  > "However, I now know that horizontal displacement of the platform
                  > must be accompanied by a raise in height to counter the lowering of
                  > the side of the cone relative to its keeper ring because the system
                  > must stay balenced over the entire displacement of the upper magnet."
                  >
                  > Yes, that is why we must deploy sacred geometry to all aspects of the
                  > design of the isotope line, the geometry takes care of these things.
                  > The osc table is a harmonic in the balls at about 3 orders down from
                  > the top cone. The cup is another harmonic adjacent to the ball. The
                  > osc table itself is not a harmonic, but is the same as the top cone,
                  > however the placement of balls and cups are based upon a mathematical
                  > placement in relation to sacred geometry.
                  >
                  > "The electronics would have to be placed remotely from the system and
                  > speed control would have to initiate prior to reaching a frequency at
                  > which the system would be overloaded which is easy to accomplish
                  > using the microcontroller. "
                  >
                  > I think I understand what you are saying, Gus, that you'd use the
                  > coil to send pulses back into the coils to create magnetic fields to
                  > oppose the magnets in attraction, to somewhat control the base osc
                  > table.
                  > Of course, the idea, is to let it run free until resonance, and then
                  > I would presume your coils would allow you to shut the system down by
                  > putting an interference into the bottom table.
                  >
                  > I was thinking, in order to shut my system down, that I would throw
                  > heavy bricks at it :) no...no....
                  > or water.... (kidding of course).
                  >
                  > "Who knows if my control system will work before there is a working
                  > model that needs to be controlled - large amounts of electrical noise
                  > could interfere with the processor."
                  >
                  > Yes, the magnetic field will get big, but how strong it is, also the
                  > ions being created, will be with the magnetic field.
                  >
                  > I would say perhaps that another few magnets, which are sufficiently
                  > powerful enough should be kept away from the system and then swung
                  > into one or all three cones simultaneously to bring in a distortion
                  > to the magnetic fields on the rings. This would perhaps shut down one
                  > or all cones. It would make sense to sue a magnet, since the system
                  > is magnetic, less reliability on electronics, since we know the
                  > energy systems behind the isotope line and electronics are not
                  > compatible.
                  >
                  > Or place a high strength magnet below the osc table, bring it upward
                  > to mingle with the magnets in the table, and cause an interference.
                  >
                  > Several ways to it, I would say, with magnets, rather than
                  > electronics.
                  >
                  > For myself, I have very large 8 inch magnets, high power that I could
                  > use, above the top cone. Bring it down when and if the system reaches
                  > resonance.
                  >
                  > Matt
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Header Codes
                  > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
                  > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
                  > 11113: David Hamel reports
                  > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
                  > OT: "Off Topic"
                  >
                  > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                • Dell Coleman
                  True, but you can get it from someplace else .... DC Trevor Smouter wrote: You can t get something for nothing... Ever.
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jun 9, 2005
                    True, but you can get it from someplace else ....

                    DC

                    Trevor Smouter wrote:

                    You can't get something for nothing... Ever.
                  • Matt Rock
                    Hi Gus, yes, I am aware of that too, once in motion the devices go and go. It would be interesting to see how the machine would respond to attempt in
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jun 9, 2005
                      Hi Gus,

                      yes, I am aware of that too, once in motion the devices go and go.
                      It would be interesting to see how the machine would respond to
                      attempt in throttling it down.

                      Thanks

                      Matt

                      --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Smouter <gusstyles@g...>
                      wrote:
                      > David says you can't stop it once it has started. To do so would
                      > destroy it. You can only throttle it down.
                      >
                      > What I was saying about the coils is like taking a DC motor(stepper
                      or
                      > whatever), spinning the shaft and then shorting out its wires. It
                      > gets incredibly hard to turn. A magnetic field passes easily
                      through
                      > a copper coil that is open. Shorting the coil's leads together
                      allows
                      > current to flow during iduction which basically creates heat in the
                      > windings.
                      >
                      > Like those bikes that demonstrate electrical generation, peddling is
                      > easy until you turn on the light. Then it becomes very difficult.
                      > You can't get something for nothing... Ever.
                      >
                      > Gus
                      >
                      > On 6/9/05, Matt Rock <mattihorn@i...> wrote:
                      > > "However, I now know that horizontal displacement of the platform
                      > > must be accompanied by a raise in height to counter the lowering
                      of
                      > > the side of the cone relative to its keeper ring because the
                      system
                      > > must stay balenced over the entire displacement of the upper
                      magnet."
                      > >
                      > > Yes, that is why we must deploy sacred geometry to all aspects of
                      the
                      > > design of the isotope line, the geometry takes care of these
                      things.
                      > > The osc table is a harmonic in the balls at about 3 orders down
                      from
                      > > the top cone. The cup is another harmonic adjacent to the ball.
                      The
                      > > osc table itself is not a harmonic, but is the same as the top
                      cone,
                      > > however the placement of balls and cups are based upon a
                      mathematical
                      > > placement in relation to sacred geometry.
                      > >
                      > > "The electronics would have to be placed remotely from the system
                      and
                      > > speed control would have to initiate prior to reaching a
                      frequency at
                      > > which the system would be overloaded which is easy to accomplish
                      > > using the microcontroller. "
                      > >
                      > > I think I understand what you are saying, Gus, that you'd use the
                      > > coil to send pulses back into the coils to create magnetic fields
                      to
                      > > oppose the magnets in attraction, to somewhat control the base
                      osc
                      > > table.
                      > > Of course, the idea, is to let it run free until resonance, and
                      then
                      > > I would presume your coils would allow you to shut the system
                      down by
                      > > putting an interference into the bottom table.
                      > >
                      > > I was thinking, in order to shut my system down, that I would
                      throw
                      > > heavy bricks at it :) no...no....
                      > > or water.... (kidding of course).
                      > >
                      > > "Who knows if my control system will work before there is a
                      working
                      > > model that needs to be controlled - large amounts of electrical
                      noise
                      > > could interfere with the processor."
                      > >
                      > > Yes, the magnetic field will get big, but how strong it is, also
                      the
                      > > ions being created, will be with the magnetic field.
                      > >
                      > > I would say perhaps that another few magnets, which are
                      sufficiently
                      > > powerful enough should be kept away from the system and then
                      swung
                      > > into one or all three cones simultaneously to bring in a
                      distortion
                      > > to the magnetic fields on the rings. This would perhaps shut down
                      one
                      > > or all cones. It would make sense to sue a magnet, since the
                      system
                      > > is magnetic, less reliability on electronics, since we know the
                      > > energy systems behind the isotope line and electronics are not
                      > > compatible.
                      > >
                      > > Or place a high strength magnet below the osc table, bring it
                      upward
                      > > to mingle with the magnets in the table, and cause an
                      interference.
                      > >
                      > > Several ways to it, I would say, with magnets, rather than
                      > > electronics.
                      > >
                      > > For myself, I have very large 8 inch magnets, high power that I
                      could
                      > > use, above the top cone. Bring it down when and if the system
                      reaches
                      > > resonance.
                      > >
                      > > Matt
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Header Codes
                      > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
                      > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
                      > > 11113: David Hamel reports
                      > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
                      > > OT: "Off Topic"
                      > >
                      > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ________________________________
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
                      > >
                      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      Service.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.