X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri May 30 21:03:33 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 21:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 13:04:08 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: neotech@xbn.shore.net, newman-l@emachine.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Kits and SMOT Phases update (31st May, 1997) Resent-Message-ID: <"EwMeB2.0.a44.VCwZp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3489 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Here are the updated SMOT Kit and SMOT Phases details : ******************** Price : $150 Australian Dollars via International Bank Cheque made payable to Greg Watson Consulting. ~ 115 US Dollars, 70 UK Pounds, 660 French Francs, 158 Canadian Dollars, 3975 Belgium Francs, 195 German Marks, 13200 Japanese Yen, 165 New Zealand Dollars, 875 Swedish Krona, 192000 Italian Lira 1350 Austrian Schillings 160 Swish Francs Please remit funds via an International Bank Cheque in Australian Dollars. ******************** Where to send for your SMOT Kit : Greg Watson Consulting, 8 Brabham Grove, Aberfolye Park, 5159, South Australia, Australia. Contact Details : Home / Business / PC Fax .......... 61 8 8270 2737 E-Mail ............................ gwatson@microtronics.com.au ******************** What you will get for your $150 dollars : 4 x Heat formed perspex bases (Numbered, dated and signed my me), 4 x Linking ramps with "S" curve exits, 1 x Linking ramp with 90 deg exit (Rollaway / Rollaround use), 8 x Assembled Magnet Arrays, 4 x Steel Balls, 8 x Dress Making Pins, 1 x Instruction Manual, 1 x Frameable "Certificate of Authenticity", 1 x Photo of ME with the 4 linked SMOT ramps, The SMOT kits are "Exec Desk" Quality. One kit will produce 4 "Exec Desk" Toys. ******************** Delivery : Via international postal air mail. ******************** My Personal Guarantee : Assuming that the ramps are placed on a flat level surface, I Greg Watson personal guarantee that : 1) The 4 SMOT ramps will work as individual ramps. A ball statring at rest will climb the ramp and drop out. start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 1) >>>>>>> This is Phase 1 of SMOT development and testing. 2) The 4 SMOT ramps will link and deliver a ball starting at rest to the end of the 4th linked ramp and drop out. start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 1) start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 2) start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 3) start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm. (Ramp 4) >>>>>>> This is Phase 2 of SMOT development and testing. If your SMOT kit can't do this, I will refund your money. ******************** Additional claims : Depending on your skill in adjusting the ramps and their linking, you should expect to achieve the following : 1) That the 4 linked ramps can be placed on a base board that will elevate the ramps at an angle and achieve a final ramp height at least twice the original height. The use of a board allows gradual increase of the ramp heights while you learn to power up the ramps. start at 0mm, climb to 15mm, drop to 3mm, (Ramp 1) start at 3mm, climb to 18mm, drop to 6mm, (Ramp 2) start at 6mm, climb to 21mm, drop to 9mm, (Ramp 3) start at 9mm, climb to 24mm, drop to 0mm. (Ramp 4) >>>>>> This is Phase 3 of SMOT development and testing. 2) That with the tilted linking achieved, the ball on exiting the final ramp will fall to the entry level and roll away from the ramp assemblies (staying at the entry level). (This is the first OU claim). >>>>>> This is Phase 4 of SMOT development and testing. 3) That with the rollaway achieved, a rollaround using plastic tubing will allow the ball to return to the start. (This is the second OU claim) >>>>>> This is Phase 5 of SMOT development and testing. 4) That with the rollaround achieved, the ball will re-enter the first ramp and repeat the process. (This is the third OU claim) >>>>>> This is Phase 6 and final stage of SMOT development and testing. ******************** I can't guarantee that YOU will achieve all of the above. To do so will depend on how good you get in adjusting the magnets. Many others will support my claim that getting the adjustments right can require hours of fiddling or minutes. It all depends on how much you understand the dynamics of the ramps. The more you play, the more you understand and the adjustments become second nature. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Web sites who display this offer for at least 3 months will receive a FREE SMOT Kit. If you have already purchased a SMOT kit, I will refund your money. I will have photos of the finished SMOT kits available with-in a week. Best Regards, Good Smoting to all, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 21:47:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:45:00 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:43:50 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Magnet stacks repel Resent-Message-ID: <"DXhsj.0.6x3.BvFap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7665 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Terry - > If you seek waves, you find waves. I seek 'em, dude. But all we've got is 1' to 2' of wind-blown mush. Do I have to close the SMOT loop before a big south swell will arrive? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 03:04:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 03:03:05 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 00:01:52 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re : Last AND Least? Resent-Message-ID: <"byzHw2.0.JK1.OZKap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7670 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jean-Louis - When you say "The V shape of each magnetic ramp must be wide...", do you mean the gap between magnet assemblies must be wide but closer towards parallel in alignment with each other, or that the V must be wide at the entrance with a greater angle between the assemblies? The images on your site make it look like the rails are as near to parallel as they can be yet still propel the ball. Is that right? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Not like this, but more like this? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 15:47:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 15:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 02:13:59 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: C of E References: <970531193634_76016.2701_JHC53-1@CompuServe.COM> <339080FD.20BA34CB@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"zE05S.0.4w2.weAap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7650 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I forgot to ask something. This may be not a smart question but, did you checked your table is flat? Other questions: Do you have ramps? Did you used multiple or single module? Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 17:42:14 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 17:42:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Reed Huish To: "'free nrg'" Cc: "'egel@main.murray.net.au'" Subject: The Encyclopedia Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 15:18:17 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"_qnPl.0.xK6.oLCap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3527 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id RAA32524 Thanks to Geoff Egal, we have posted his complete Encyclopedia to Free Energy on our web-site, located at http://zenergy.com under the Research section. If anyone has research material or other technical information which would be of benefit to individuals working in this new industry, please let us know and we would be happy to post the information on our site. - Reed Huish Zenergy Corp http://zenergy.com 602.814.7865 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 16:15:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 16:15:14 -0700 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 08:43:11 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Kit Offer Update (1st June, 1997), Web sites please update Resent-Message-ID: <"NXRs9.0.IO1._3Bap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3524 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Here are the updated SMOT Kit and SMOT Phases details : ******************** Price : $150 Australian Dollars via International Bank Cheque made payable to Greg Watson Consulting. ~ 115 US Dollars, 70 UK Pounds, 660 French Francs, 158 Canadian Dollars, 3975 Belgium Francs, 195 German Marks, 13200 Japanese Yen, 165 New Zealand Dollars, 875 Swedish Krona, 192000 Italian Lira 1350 Austrian Schillings 160 Swish Francs Please remit funds via an International Bank Cheque in Australian Dollars. You can ALSO send money directly to my bank account. My bank (ANZ) charges me $10 Aust to process the TT : If you wish to remit funds via TT please send $160 Australian Dollars to : Acount Name : Mr. and Mrs. GO Watson, Account Number : 015-035 5774-67879 Bank : Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., (ANZ) 201 Victoria Square, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia, Australia. Advise request : Please advise Greg Watson on 8270 2737 of senders details. As banks sometimes get things wrong, please advise me when you send a TT. ******************** Where to send for your SMOT Kit : Greg Watson Consulting, 8 Brabham Grove, Aberfolye Park, 5159, South Australia, Australia. Contact Details : Home / Business / PC Fax .......... 61 8 8270 2737 E-Mail ............................ gwatson@microtronics.com.au ******************** What you will get for your $150 dollars : 4 x Heat formed perspex bases (Numbered, dated and signed my me), 4 x Linking ramps with "S" curve exits, 1 x Linking ramp with 90 deg exit (Rollaway / Rollaround use), 8 x Assembled Magnet Arrays, 4 x Steel Balls, 8 x Dress Making Pins, 1 x Instruction Manual, 1 x Frameable "Certificate of Authenticity", 1 x Photo of ME with the 4 linked SMOT ramps, The SMOT kits are "Exec Desk" Quality. One kit will produce 4 "Exec Desk" Toys. ******************** Delivery : Via international postal air mail. ******************** My Personal Guarantee : Assuming that the ramps are placed on a flat level surface, I Greg Watson personal guarantee that : 1) The 4 SMOT ramps will work as individual ramps. A ball statring at rest will climb the ramp and drop out. start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 1) >>>>>>> This is Phase 1 of SMOT development and testing. 2) The 4 SMOT ramps will link and deliver a ball starting at rest to the end of the 4th linked ramp and drop out. start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 1) start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 2) start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 3) start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm. (Ramp 4) >>>>>>> This is Phase 2 of SMOT development and testing. If your SMOT kit can't do this, I will refund your money. ******************** Additional claims : Depending on your skill in adjusting the ramps and their linking, you should expect to achieve the following : 1) That the 4 linked ramps can be placed on a base board that will elevate the ramps at an angle and achieve a final ramp height at least twice the original height. The use of a board allows gradual increase of the ramp heights while you learn to power up the ramps. start at 0mm, climb to 15mm, drop to 3mm, (Ramp 1) start at 3mm, climb to 18mm, drop to 6mm, (Ramp 2) start at 6mm, climb to 21mm, drop to 9mm, (Ramp 3) start at 9mm, climb to 24mm, drop to 0mm. (Ramp 4) >>>>>> This is Phase 3 of SMOT development and testing. 2) That with the tilted linking achieved, the ball on exiting the final ramp will fall to the entry level and roll away from the ramp assemblies (staying at the entry level). (This is the first OU claim). >>>>>> This is Phase 4 of SMOT development and testing. 3) That with the rollaway achieved, a rollaround using plastic tubing will allow the ball to return to the start. (This is the second OU claim) >>>>>> This is Phase 5 of SMOT development and testing. 4) That with the rollaround achieved, the ball will re-enter the first ramp and repeat the process. (This is the third OU claim) >>>>>> This is Phase 6 and final stage of SMOT development and testing. ******************** I can't guarantee that YOU will achieve all of the above. To do so will depend on how good you get in adjusting the magnets. Many others will support my claim that getting the adjustments right can require hours of fiddling or minutes. It all depends on how much you understand the dynamics of the ramps. The more you play, the more you understand and the adjustments become second nature. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Web sites who WISH to display this offer for at least 3 months AND qualify to receive a FREE SMOT Kit, please contact me for the details. If you have already purchased a SMOT kit, I will refund your money. I will have photos of the finished SMOT kits available with-in a week. Best Regards, Good Smoting to all, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 16:50:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 16:48:51 -0700 Date: 31 May 97 19:47:59 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Magnet stacks repel Resent-Message-ID: <"LgN3N2.0.2f2.YZBap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7653 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Terry, > >>Hmmm, that gives me a another thought though: could there be a > *negative* experimenter effect?<< > > I was wondering that today!! I was going to suggest to Tinsley > that he consider telling someone (his daughter?) that he had > successfully gotten the cell to work but ask them to duplicate his > efforts as a senility check. Hmm. Perhaps our belief in C of E makes it real. Personally, I think that people's "vibes" are not relevant. Even if Jahn is right, minds can only effect probabilities - not solid science. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 16:00:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net (Unverified) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:01:28 -0600 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Smot thoughts Resent-Message-ID: <"XABEW.0.dO3.-qAap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7651 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com >Gnorts, everyone, > >Greg wants agreed criteria for OU, but I think that's impossible and >probably a waste of time. An online group can't decide things like >that. If we ask two people here even for a definition of OU, we'd >probably get three such. > >The history is interesting. Helmholtz, a medic, proposed the Principle >of Energy Conservation in the 1840s, and based this (heretical) notion >on the absence of perpetual motion machines after centuries of effort. >The idea caught on, and is inextricably interwoven with all laws and >theories proposed since. So much so that it is almost impossible for >any of us to think outside it. Let's not try. > snip--> >*To return to my earlier point, I have to say that IF the simulations >*are good and IF the SMOT really works, then the question of "where the >*energy is coming from" is either irrelevant (because it simply assumes >*a Principle which was based on the absence of SMOTs) or should be >*addressed on the basis of how come a simulation based on known physical >*laws can produce an OU device, when those same laws tell us that a SMOT >*is not possible. Can our resident theorists address this problem, >*because that is the REAL "theory" problem here. > >As to Remi's suggestion that the CF brigade would abhor a SMOT, let it >be quite clear that Jed and Gene and I would welcome a SMOT-powered >world with open arms. > >Chris Dear Chris, Thanks for your thoughtful and constructive post. As far as the underlying PEC, perhaps it is possible to _extend_ (rather than necessarily repudiate) scientific principles of nature into new domains. It would seem this has been true of Newton's "Law" of Gravitation. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "Long term is what you become while you are busy doing something positive that will last longer than you will." --- SUZANNE J. GALAMBOS X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 17:05:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 17:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 09:33:31 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A mundane explanation of SMOTs References: <199705310000.UAA27226@big.seorf.ohiou.edu> <338FAAFB.5D16@microtronics.com.au> <3390DBDE.41D2@tiac.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"4AXQn3.0.0D5.npBap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3526 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Bob Shannon wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > > Science wig. sig. wrote: > > > > > > Greg, > > > Way don't you help try and explain your great idea. You don't need to > > > jump on other people, just help us figure out where the energy is coming > > > from. > > > > I only get annoyed at folks that make statements about the SMOT device > > and they have never even built one. If you want to shoot it apart, > > thats fine, but first build one. Only seems fair, right? > > Not if you invite theoretical discussion on the subject. Any exactly > why would > you assume that its remotely reasonable for you to set any limits on the > discussion > over an open list Greg? > > Think about that for a minute, you might learn something. Hi Bob, I fully believe in and support open discussion about SMOT. NO RESTRICTIONS. I also know that some wild ideas have flown about and that if a SMOT ramp had been played with before, the ideas could have been better directed. For the first time that I know, a quick, easy, low cost and simple to construct device has been placed in the public domain for all to play with and discuss. There is even video of the devices working to be viewed by all. When was the last time that hap pened? If the SMOT ramp required mega hours and/or dollars to build and a lab full of equipment to test, then more theory based discussion is to be expected. This has been the norm for most of the ideas presented on these groups. However, with SMOT that is NOT the case. For the first time, YOU can build a SMOT ramp in a few hours, play with it, think about what your eyes and hands are telling you. It then OPENS up a whole world of discussions based on the operational characteristics observed by so many. Pure theory based discussion is OK. Go for it. But I really believe YOU and all the rest of us will get a lot more out of the discussions once YOU have built a SMOT ramp. Thats why I keep on saying "Build a SMOT ramp, then talk". It improves the signal to noise ratio. My Very Best Regards, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 18:41:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:37:12 -0700 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 05:06:27 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex , Greg Watson Subject: Re:SMOT Kit Offer Update (1st June, 1997) Resent-Message-ID: <"CM_87.0.tA6.69Dap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7658 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, This kit have historical value. I recommend that every one have one. Build or keep it as original package. It will be the most precious piece of the science museum in the next years. Greg, did you putting date and serial number on it? I am still cautious about announcing this kit on a WEB page. A friend of mine after who does not believe the miracle said after reading the KIT option "He already closed the loop in other way". He implied business. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 18:12:20 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 10:39:57 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT balls becoming magnetised Resent-Message-ID: <"OnQNR1.0.P_6.DoCap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3528 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have attached a simple Gif showing how any ferromagnetic material will react as it moves through the different mag fields in a SMOT ramp (or any field differential where reversal doesn't occur). The material will trace out what is called a "Minor Loop" as the ball moves from the area of smallest field (at the bottom of the ramp) to the area of largest field (at the top of the ramp) and back. I have never seen any references to the fact that a ferromagnetic material moving through a minor loop will climb higher and higher up its B/H curve and increase its residual magnetism. I have many years of designing and working with ferromagnetic and ha ve never seen it happen. I don't believe it works like that. I am working on a SMOT theory which ties in Barry's ideas (which I partly agree with), the Rod & Coil demo Epitaxy and I presented here and my DNMEC effect experience. If I am right, the energy is coming from the ball and not the magnets. Hope this helps the discussion, Greg Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\BALL-B-H.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 18:19:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:19:14 -0700 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 10:47:15 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A mundane explanation of SMOTs References: <199705310000.UAA27226@big.seorf.ohiou.edu> <338FAAFB.5D16@microtronics.com.au> <3390DBDE.41D2@tiac.net> <3390BC53.3B55@microtronics.com.au> <3390F013.4A6B@tiac.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"eeRQL1.0.ZX5 .GuCap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3529 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Bob Shannon wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > I fully believe in and support open discussion about SMOT. > > > > NO RESTRICTIONS. > > > > I also know that some wild ideas have flown about and that if a SMOT > > ramp had been played with before, the ideas could have been better > > directed. > > > > For the first time that I know, a quick, easy, low cost and simple to > > construct device has been placed in the public domain for all to play > > with and discuss. There is even video of the devices working to be > > viewed by all. When was the last time that happened? > > > > If the SMOT ramp required mega hours and/or dollars to build and a lab > > full of equipment to test, then more theory based discussion is to be > > expected. This has been the norm for most of the ideas presented on > > these groups. However, with SMOT that is NOT the case. > > Whoa there, discussion of the theory plays just as important a role in an > easy to produce device as it does in a difficult to produce device. > > I fail to see your point here. For the first time, you can base discussion on a real device! > > For the first time, YOU can build a SMOT ramp in a few hours, play with > > it, think about what your eyes and hands are telling you. It then OPENS > > up a whole world of discussions based on the operational characteristics > > observed by so many. > > Clearly you prefer that anyone wishing to join the discussion has first built > your device. I guess you feel is unlikely people could discuss its operation > without first having built one. No, that's not so. Its just that, for most of us, the quality of the discussion seems higher once a device is built. > > Pure theory based discussion is OK. Go for it. But I really believe > > YOU and all the rest of us will get a lot more out of the discussions > > once YOU have built a SMOT ramp. > > > > Thats why I keep on saying "Build a SMOT ramp, then talk". > > > > It improves the signal to noise ratio. > > Your beginning to sound a bit like an 'infomercial' Greg, but I'll be happy > to do my part in keeping the SNR down by not posting on the subject from > now on. Hi Bob, That is NOT what I or this group needs. We need all the input we can get. Yours included!!!!!!!!!! Best Regards and Good Thinking, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 15:50:17 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 15:50:06 -0700 Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:48:15 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Can magnets do work? References: <338F8091.914@tiac.net> <338F6546.7786@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"1XZma.0.c4.TiAap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3520 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > Bob Shannon wrote: > > But when we place the ball on the start of the ramp, we are putting > > energy into the system. We release the ball, adding a bit more energy. > > NO ............. a thousand times NO. Greg, are you really saying it takes no energy to place the ball in the field? > > Bob, have you actually built a SMOT ramp? > > When you do so, you will see that this ststement is incorrect. > > > The ball goes up the ramp, and gravity returns the ball to the original > > level, where it finds another ramp. If the ramp added energy to the > > ball, it should travel up the second identical ramp a bit faster than it > > had before. After a few circuits through the ramps, it should be moving > > quite quickly if each trip up the ramp actually added energy to the > > motion of the ball. > > Only if the added energy was greater than the frictional losses. Exactly Greg, and this is what over unity means, input to output ratios... > If you build a SMOT ramp and play with the adjustments, you will learn > that most of the energy gain in the ramp is lost in using the mag wall > at the end of the ramp to push the ball back into the exit rails. > Others will verify this. > > Using a sharp drop off, the SMOT ramps are sort of self regulating. At unity, not 'over unity'? > > The improved Phase 2 ramps with their "S" curved exits are another thing > again. With these, we can actually hang onto more of the balls energy. So they accelerate on each circuit, or can drive a external load? > Please Bob, before you say any more, BUILD 2 SMOT RAMPS. Then comment. > As I said before, the way I designed the exit in the easy to build Phase > 1 design makes the ramps sort of self regulating. > > Don't believe me? > > BUILD a Phase 1 SMOT ramp and see for yourself! > Answer the question yourself. Build a SMOT ramp. > Build a SMOT ramp before you go on further. > They REALLY do work. > The Phase 1 design is self regulating. > Honest! Greg, didn't you recently invite theoretical discussions of this device on the list? Now I am asked not to discuss this further unless I've built the thing? Wow. I have no doubt it does what is claimed Greg, I was only commenting on what might be going on in this behavior. I have noever intended to doubt the claims themselves. I thought you had specifically invited such discussion. Sorry about that mate. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 18:54:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 11:20:51 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Kit Offer Update (1st June, 1997) References: <3390CB13.9FFDB53E@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"iY0tg.0.BJ1.jODap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3530 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Hi, > > This kit have historical value. I recommend that every one have one. > Build or keep it as original package. It will be the most precious piece > of the science museum in the next years. Greg, did you putting date and > serial number on it? > > I am still cautious about announcing this kit on a WEB page. A friend of > mine after who does not believe the miracle said after reading the KIT > option "He already closed the loop in other way". He implied business. > > Regards, > > Hamdi Ucar Hi Hamdi, Each SMOT ramp's base will be serial numbered, dated and signed my me. And there are 4 in each kit. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 15:57:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 15:57:56 -0700 Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:56:09 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: Epitaxy CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Can magnets do work? References: <3.0.32.19970530172109.00af1aa8@mail.localaccess.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"CGTW03.0.GY.opAap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3521 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Epitaxy wrote: > > NO COINCIDENCE AT ALL. Really? > C'mon. It is quite obvious that the ball will reach certain TERMINAL > VELOCITY because the eddy current braking and air resistance increase with > speed. > > Soooo... since the losses are dependent on speed, they will very quickly > reach an equilibrium. Just like a skydiver who reaches 160 miles per hour > and does not accelerate any faster although the gravity is pulling on him > with the same force as in the beginning. > > If it wasn't for this simple relationship the ball would go faster and > faster and faster.................. Err, that ball always starts off at terminal velocity? That is what I might describe as a coincidence. It's got to accelerate to this point of equlibrium between any net energy gain and induced losses. This acceleration, or the lack of it will tell us a great deal about the operation of the ramp, reguardless of the fact that it should at some point reach equlibrium. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 16:02:28 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 19:00:31 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Can magnets do work? References: Resent-Message-ID: <"JR63S1.0.DX3.cuAap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3522 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com William Beaty wrote: > > On Sat, 31 May 1997, Greg Watson wrote: > > > Bob Shannon wrote: > > > The ball goes up the ramp, and gravity returns the ball to the original > > > level, where it finds another ramp. If the ramp added energy to the > > > ball, it should travel up the second identical ramp a bit faster than it > > > had before. After a few circuits through the ramps, it should be moving > > > quite quickly if each trip up the ramp actually added energy to the > > > motion of the ball. > > > > Only if the added energy was greater than the frictional losses. > > Yes. And besides "rolling friction" and inductive braking, there is also > demagnetization/remagnetization loss in the steel of the ball (also called > hysterisis loss.) My gut feel is that this path for energy loss is greater > than inductive braking. Shifting the permanent magnetization of the steel > ball will slow the ball and heat it. One way to reduce hysterisis loss: > don't use steel, use a ferromag material which cannot be permanently > magnetized. Pure iron for example. I've heard that steel with extremely > high carbon content is similar. I believe that the alloys used in > transformer laminations are optimized for reduced hysterisis loss. > However, perhaps the o/u effect involves hysterisis in the ball, and a > pure iron ball actually will not run in closed-loop mode. Good point, I'd forgotten this source of loss. > > > If you build a SMOT ramp and play with the adjustments, you will learn > > that most of the energy gain in the ramp is lost in using the mag wall > > at the end of the ramp to push the ball back into the exit rails. > > Others will verify this. > > This is interesting. Why should this be? Since fields are conservative, > the ball should "bounce off" the exit field, and any slowing that occurs > should produce a speedup in a later part of the ball's trajectory. That > is, unless there is a big dollop of hysterisis loss because of the > nonlinear fields magnetizing the steel ball. > > > > It would be quite a conincidence if the frictional and other losses were > > > always equal to the energy gain, resulting in a contant average ball > > > velocity. > > I have to disagree. Physical systems with low power and high friction > will accelerate only up to a speed where frictional loss is equal to > excess energy input rate. If friction was constant, then the rate of > energy loss increases with increasing speed. The system will "magically" > find the special speed where power loss equals power input. (Imagine a > wind-up toy boat driving across a bathtub; it doesn't speed up and up, > instead it immediately settles to a constant speed.) Argeed, I was not quite clear. I understand the device will accelerate up to a point of equlibrium, its this acceleration up to that limit I was thinking of in my original posting. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 16:13:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 16:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 19:11:11 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Question? Very important question! References: <970530223105_1375870919@emout02.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"28QYW2.0.5r3.V2Bap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3523 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com HLafonte@aol.com wrote: > > Greg, > I have a book by Lester R, Moskowitz called, Permanent Magnet Design and > Application Handbook. He states that one of the first things that a person > who is handling permanent magnets for the first time ask's is, when they pull > two magnets apart they pull each other back together again and if they do > this sequence over and over again the magnets don't lose any strength and > they ask where does the energy come from to keep them pulling each other back > together again? He says it should be quite clear to them what is going on. > When they let the magnets pull each other together the magnets do work and a > certain amout of the magnets energy is reduced. What they don't see going on > is, that when they pull the magnets apart they do work on the magnets and > restore that lost energy back to the magnets. Gee, not totally unlike a spring? > If this is not so, then every time we pull two magnets apart we are > increasing the total energy of the magnets and if we were to do this a > million times then the magnets would be so full of energy they would be about > to " burst at the seams". > What scares me is if what he says is true then every time you got the > magnets to do work, then to maintain the original energy level of the > magnets, you would half to return that work in total to the magnets and if > any of that work was done external of the system, and not returned to the > system in full, then the total energy of the magnets drops. > Please tell me this is not so and why! > Butch LaFonte Maybe this has something to do with why the flux lines must always return back to their source? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 19:23:07 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 19:23:02 -0700 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 11:50:18 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT sims and mesh size Resent-Message-ID: <"7vcyR1.0.-g7.3qDap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3531 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have attached the mesh I used to generate the "looking from the top" sims. As Scott says, I am limited to 500 nodes, but the guys at Quick Field claim to do some fancy footwork and produce results much finer than 500 nodes would otherwise produce. It seems to work. Anyway, here is the mesh in the raw. Greg Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\RAMP-MES.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 16:53:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 16:53:11 -0700 Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 19:51:27 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: can magnets do work? Resent-Message-ID: <"_AVEu3.0.Fp2.cdBap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3525 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > Science wig. sig. wrote: > > Greg, > > Way don't you help try and explain your great idea. You don't need to > > jump on other people, just help us figure out where the energy is coming > > from. > > I only get annoyed at folks that make statements about the SMOT device > and they have never even built one. If you want to shoot it apart, > thats fine, but first build one. Only seems fair, right? Not if you invite theoretical discussion on the subject. Any exactly why would you assume that its remotely reasonable for you to set any limits on the discussion over an open list Greg? And why do you assume that this discussion of your device is 'shooting it apart'? What happened to the process of objective discussion that has been a part of doing science for all these years, has all that oly been 'shooting' each other down? Think about that for a minute, you might learn something. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 20:03:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 20:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: 31 May 97 22:59:16 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Magnet stacks repel Resent-Message-ID: <"KSuKA2.0.pJ3.XOEap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7661 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley said: >>Hmm. Perhaps our belief in C of E makes it real. Personally, I think that people's "vibes" are not relevant. Even if Jahn is right, minds can only effect probabilities - not solid science.<< I only offer the suggestion after reviewing the work of John Hutchison and remembering a particular good run on the craps table. In the former case, the effect of the experimenter was suggested by a physicist who had seen successful levitation by John's machines; but, was at a loss to explain why others could not replicate the effect. In the latter case, I "knew" what I would throw next and bet low when I "felt" the end coming. It only happened once but gave me a taste of how gambling could become addi ctive. Let's not trivialize the power of the mind. If you seek waves, you find waves. Others find particles. Maybe it is possible to kill Shroedinger's Cat. Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 15:01:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:46:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: <199706011400.JAA01114@natasha.eden.com> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:44:25 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Last AND Least? Resent-Message-ID: <"dC2DW2.0.bD5.nsUap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7715 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Frank - > I'm not trying to upset Greg's sequence here, > but if some of you advanced SMOTers are > interested, you might try to get multi-array > feed through with a level, continuous track. It occured to me that a horizontal elbow might be a way to see one-'ramp' rollaway, or at least a convenient 90 degree section making it 1/4 of a complete circle. I thought of using an over-under magnet array setup on an elbowed track, actually a piece of copper tube. Tried it, but it turns out that putting a sharp bend in tube that stays cleanly countoured on the inside isn't trivial. I shoulda known that. I think it needs the elbow to kick the ball out the field hole in Greg's sims. Otherwise too much energy is spent punching the wall. I've finally got the right magnets to do Greg's recipe, so I'm going to spend most of my SMOT time on that now. Got one go od ramp working to specs, and it seems to have the required 1/4 rail height gain needed engage linking. It has weaker rollback force after dropoff than the wide magnet version I had been playing with too. But when I try the horizontal elbow again, I'll ju st use a rectangular boxlike tube assembled from sintra with a clear 'lid'. The ball can roll on whatever surface it wants to in there without skidding or dragging, and still stay tracking very near the centerline if I make the clearance just a constant R CH over the ball diameter. Happy SMOTing and kitchen remodeling to you. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 15:40:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 15:31:53 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:12:36 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: New SMOTer & ramp Resent-Message-ID: <"rpcdC3.0.Hq1.DXVap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7720 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mike - > - it is possible to feel the 'blue hole', > holding the ball between finger and thumb. Yes! Feel the blue hole. Makes it palpably real, and helps keeps focus on how this stuff is *supposed* to work. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 20:12:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 20:11:07 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:14:07 -0600 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Smot thoughts Resent-Message-ID: <"baEzG1.0.e_.AXEap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7662 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com [This is a re-post; received an incomplete confirmation...] >Gnorts, everyone, > >Greg wants agreed criteria for OU, but I think that's impossible and >probably a waste of time. An online group can't decide things like >that. If we ask two people here even for a definition of OU, we'd >probably get three such. > >The history is interesting. Helmholtz, a medic, proposed the Principle >of Energy Conservation in the 1840s, and based this (heretical) notion >on the absence of perpetual motion machines after centuries of effort. >The idea caught on, and is inextricably interwoven with all laws and >theories proposed since. So much so that it is almost impossible for >any of us to think outside it. Let's not try. > snip--> >*To return to my earlier point, I have to say that IF the simulations >*are good and IF the SMOT really works, then the question of "where the >*energy is coming from" is either irrelevant (because it simply assumes >*a Principle which was based on the absence of SMOTs) or should be >*addressed on the basis of how come a simulation based on known physical >*laws can produce an OU device, when those same laws tell us that a SMOT >*is not possible. Can our resident theorists address this problem, >*because that is the REAL "theory" problem here. > >As to Remi's suggestion that the CF brigade would abhor a SMOT, let it >be quite clear that Jed and Gene and I would welcome a SMOT-powered >world with open arms. > >Chris Dear Chris, Thanks for your thoughtful and constructive post. As far as the underlying PEC, perhaps it is possible to _extend_ (rather than necessarily repudiate) scientific principles of nature into new domains. It would seem this has been true of Newton's "Law" of Gravitation. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "Long term is what you become while you are busy doing something positive that will last longer than you will." --- SUZANNE J. GALAMBOS X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 15:41:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 15:37:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:34:51 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: No steel strips yet - Barry's computatio Resent-Message-ID: <"rKWLc2.0.lE7.IcVap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7721 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jed - > When he came up with the answer of 17 > hours for the KE equal to a fall of -- what > was it, 50 cm? 5 cm? -- he should have > realized instantly and intuitively that he was > wrong. As I should have before posting when I came up with 4000mph Dremels. I was off by ~2 orders of magnitude. But when Barry does the same thing, he says it's not a math error since the actual arithmetic on the numbers he chose to use was presumably correct. I admit numbers can look nice in and of themselves, like gleaming fancy show cars on display - but real cars are for the roads. They have to be practical. His numbers are not. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 15:50:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 15:48:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:46:05 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: No steel strips yet - Barry's computatio Resent-Message-ID: <"EMHOp3.0.qQ.amVap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7723 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Terry - > The ball starts with virtually zero > momentum in the horizontal plane. > Properly adjusted, the ball exits the device > with significant momentum in the horizontal > plane after rising several mm. Just reading that makes me feel dense. I don't get it, or just can't believe it. Once more for the terminally slow Terry, if you please: Are you getting complete rollaway at the **same level on which the ball was started** with the single ramp? If so, why don't you then make a wrap-around track of some sort and use this "significant momentum" to close the loop? Do you have any way of creating a digital image of this rig for posting or e-mailing? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 21:38:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: SMOT balls becoming magnetised Resent-Message-ID: <"DdJxL3.0.rH5.IoFap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7663 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, Interesting graph of the steel ball B/H curve. It would explain why the ball moves uphill. If the energy is coming from the ball, how did it get there? It had to come from or be energied from the magnetic field? ZPE or aether still seems to be the extra source for this I would speculate on. Best Regards, Michael At 10:39 AM 6/1/97 +0930, you wrote: >Hi All, > >I have attached a simple Gif showing how any ferromagnetic material will >react as it moves through the different mag fields in a SMOT ramp (or >any field differential where reversal doesn't occur). > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 21:39:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:36:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: SMOT Phase 2 Details Resent-Message-ID: <"NAbnZ3.0.EI5.LoFap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7664 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, The "S" curve works much better than the 90 deg or 45 deg. I just used a grinding wheel and got it right the first time. I estimated a 25% improvement in efficiency/easier for the ball to exit. Didn't understand when you mentioned the "S" curve before. Th e drawings really helped, thanks. Best Regards, Michael At 08:18 AM 5/30/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: >Hi All, > >Attached is a gif showing two treatments that can be used on the exit of >the ramp. The simple one I used initially as the "S" curve is difficult >to cut using hand tools and I wanted a high initial strike rate on the >SMOT Phase 1 devices. > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 16:11:11 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:10:53 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:09:38 -1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: AntiG correlation and Bismuth Resent-Message-ID: <"Pjo9G1.0.RN5.y5Wap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3550 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred - > Rick, did you do any experiments with > measuring weight of such coils while excited > by various kinds of signals? Yes, I thoughtlessly decided to run current through it from a battery while the bismuth was suspended between magnets. A strong force did indeed appear on the bismuth, jerking it out from between the magnets! My excitement lasted oh, maybe a second or so. But perhaps this effect should be studied more closely for possible useful applications. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 16:25:09 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:24:56 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:23:38 -1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: AntiG correlation and Bismuth Resent-Message-ID: <"xpl-l1.0.ZU6.6JWap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3552 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred - > A while back there was some discussion of > an experiment that I purportedly did with a > thin sheet of Bi between two magnets. I was > not the one who proposed this experiment or > discussed it, although I have seen it referred > to in the book "Manual Of Free-Energy > Devices, V. 2" by Don Kelly. Sorry, I thought it was you who had done the experimets. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 22:57:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:55:31 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 00:55:23 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Last AND Least? Resent-Message-ID: <"1aKcW.0.Vc5.IxGap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7667 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Gnorts Vorts, I have been playing with our 2 ramps for several hours now...most frustrating! I can now get a single ramp adjusted so the ball will exit the upper end and fall on the table...but only with a lift about 2/3's of that needed to allow the first channel to lap over the 2nd ramp's channel. When I increase the lift to the desired amount, I have to move the magnets in a little to make the ball run up the ramp again. That puts me in the regime where the ball _always_ snaps over to one or the other of the magn ets arrays when it gets to the top of the ramp. Vital statistics: 1. magnet dims: 7.5mm hi, 13mm long, 4mm thick 2. array size: 8 magnets long by 4 magnets thick 3. ball size: 12mm and 11.2mm....12mm seems to work best 4. channel: 13mm square, 7.7mm opening 5. alignment: ball center level with magnet center If I go ahead and limit the lift to the 2/3's value mentioned above, the ball will fall off the end of the ramp, on to table, and roll away. However, if I position a 2nd ramp after the first so the ball can't fall all the way to the table but rather lands on the 2nd ramp, the ball invariably just stops there at the foot of the second ramp held securely in position by the nearby ends of the fir st ramp's magnets. Greg, do you have to believe this thing will work before it does?.... Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 23:28:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:26:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Last AND Least? Resent-Message-ID: <"1w22T3.0.qD7.QPHap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7668 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 12:55 AM 6/1/97 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >Gnorts Vorts, > >I have been playing with our 2 ramps for several hours now...most >frustrating! I can now get a single ramp adjusted so the ball will exit the >upper end and fall on the table...but only with a lift about 2/3's of that >needed to allow the first channel to lap over the 2nd ramp's channel. When >I increase the lift to the desired amount, I have to move the magnets in a >little to make the ball run up the ramp again. That puts me in the regime >where the ball _always_ snaps over to one or the other of the magnets arrays >when it gets to the top of the ramp. > >Vital statistics: > >1. magnet dims: 7.5mm hi, 13mm long, 4mm thick >2. array size: 8 magnets long by 4 magnets thick >3. ball size: 12mm and 11.2mm....12mm seems to work best >4. channel: 13mm square, 7.7mm opening >5. alignment: ball center level with magnet center > >If I go ahead and limit the lift to the 2/3's value mentioned above, the >ball will fall off the end of the ramp, on to table, and roll away. >However, if I position a 2nd ramp after the first so the ball can't fall all >the way to the table but rather lands on the 2nd ramp, the ball invariably >just stops there at the foot of the second ramp held securely in position by >the nearby ends of the first ramp's magnets. This is normal for Phase 1 for the ball to just stop there at the foot of the second ramp held by the first ramps magnets. In Phase 2, the second ramp magnets will pull the ball up its ramp and let it drop to the start of the third ramp. Then the same fo r ramp 4. Linking ramps of course will require magnet assay adjustments. For Phase 4 to close the loop, the forth ramp drop should be twice the height of the first ramp drop (26mm in your case), this done in small incrememts on ramps 2, 3, 4. This extra height then allows a return tubing back to the start. Is this a masterpiec e of design or what! > >Greg, do you have to believe this thing will work before it does?.... > >Scott Little >EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 >512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) >little@eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little > Hi Scott, If you have a grinding wheel you might want to carve a "S" curve at the exit point of the rail as per Gregs design (smot-ph6.gif). It really helps in the linking Phases 2 through 4. Maybe Greg will sell assembled SMOT close the loop unit for those who don't have the time to build one, for an additional cost. Hint..., Hint 8^) Best Regards, Michael X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 23:45:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:45:54 -0700 Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:45:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: SMOT output Resent-Message-ID: <"HzFev3.0.ZY6.XgHap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3532 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com One way to get an output from the closed loop SMOT would be to make the ball land on or bump a piezoelectric element when it falls off the end of the ramp. If it falls hard it might make an arc ( like in a gas grill ignition ) but it should at least make an LED light briefly. Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /********************************************************/ /* I don't think that energy is conserved, but it */ /* doesn't matter if useful over-unity operation works! */ /********************************************************/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 00:54:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 00:52:57 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 03:51:51 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: little@eden.com Subject: Re : Last AND Least? Resent-Message-ID: <"x07eU.0.Fi7.OfIap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7669 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 01/06/1997 06:57:42 , little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote : << If I go ahead and limit the lift to the 2/3's value mentioned above, the ball will fall off the end of the ramp, on to table, and roll away. However, if I position a 2nd ramp after the first so the ball can't fall all the way to the table but rather lands on the 2nd ramp, the ball invariably just stops there at the foot of the second ramp held securely in position by the nearby ends of the first ramp's magnets. >> Hi Scott, I think that you main problem is due to the V shape formed by the magnetic ramp. If the V shape is too closed the magnetic field interactions between the first and the second ramp change the resulting magnetic field in the 3D neutral zone at the exit poin t. I suggest you to look at my SMOT v1.02 link design at : http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/smotidx.htm The V shape of each magnetic ramp must be wide... I hope that these informations will help you, SMOTy yours, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 01:25:34 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 01:25:37 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 01:25:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: Re: Can magnets do work? Resent-Message-ID: <"gr-0o3.0.PH.08Jap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3533 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Greg Watson wrote: >> >> Bob Shannon wrote: > > > >> > But when we place the ball on the start of the ramp, we are putting >> > energy into the system. We release the ball, adding a bit more energy. >> >> NO ............. a thousand times NO. > >Greg, are you really saying it takes no energy to place the ball in the >field? > Ok lets say you're looking at a working closed loop. The ball is going around and around making noise. Then you put a piece of wood in the ball's path at the start of a ramp ( before the ball gets there ). When the ball hits the wood the kinetic energy it contains is lost to the impact ( energy taken out of the system ). Ok, now you turn off the light in the room and leave. A week later you come back and find everything the same as when you left it. You reach down and grab the piece of wood and pull it out of the way. The first instant after the wood is gone the ball finds a new freedom. It starts rolling up the ramp. For this first moment though it is moving quite slowly, much slower than it's average speed when it's moving along. It goes up the ramp, off the end, and starts going up the next ramp, faster than when it was on the previous ramp, because at the same point an the previous ramp it was stopped. This shows that the system is doing work, by putting energy back into the bal l that we have taken out. Of course the fact that it is moving for hours also indicates that it is doing a net work. ****************************************** The system is capable of self starting. You take energy out to stop the mechanism ( when the ball hits the wood ). After moving the wood out of the way ( which does not add *any* energy ), the system resumes operation. Since the system is self-starting then we can't look to the person's hand moving the ball into position as the power source. ( Although if that was the power source then it's still utterly amazing that it could cause it to run for hours. ) ************************************** Now let's say that we're looking at a ramp. In front of it are dozens of other ramps. Behind it are dozens of other ramps. All linked together in series. There is no ball to be seen. Just the ramps with firmly attached magnets. We anaylize the magnetic fields on this ramp. Measure them. Determine the strength of the magnets. The shape of the fields. We compare it to a couple of ramps in front of it and a couple behind it. They're all the same. Here comes a ball. Up and down each ramp. It comes up the ramp in front of our ramp. It falls off the end. Now it's right at the start of our ramp. It moves up our ramp. It falls off the end. Now it's right at the start of the next ramp. Net work has been done to move the ball from the start of our ramp to the start of the next ramp. The ball is in the same situation before and after it has passed our ramp. It's at the same elevation. It has the same magnets and fields, in front if it and behind it. It's traveling the same speed at both points. Net work has been expended because the ball is traveling the same speed in spite of encountering rolling resistance etc. ****************************** Now the ball continues on it's merry way. Up and down. And now it's no longer is sight. Where did the energy come from? Did the field energy around this ramp get converted into kinetic energy? Lets measure the fields again. Hmm, the magnets were not magnetized or demagnetized according to our readings ( and others who've measured them ). The alignment of everything is the same as before. And then we realize, of course, as long as the magnets were not demagnetized, the fields around them must resume the same size. It doesn't matter if the ball rolled through, was carried through by a person's hand or passed at a hundred miles an hour. A split second later, the field resumes it's previous strength. The magnet created the field in the area. The presence of the ball modified the field. And no matter what happens to the field because of the ball being there, if it doesn't cause of change in the magnet itself then when the ball goes away the magnet does n't "remember" anything about the experience and the fields resume their previous state. *********************************** So where does the energy come from? The only place left to look is the dynamics of the what is happening as the ball goes from lowest energy point ( at the start ) to the highest energy point ( at the top of the ramp ) and then back to the lowest energy point ( which is exactly the same as the beginning ). Magnetic fields are *apparently* conserved. They're symmetrical in every way ( for lack of a better way to explain ). Let's assume that for the most part, this is true. ( I think it is, for the most part. ) Normally the work done by a magnet on an object as it travels closer, is equal and opposite to the work necessary to move it back. So it is stated that magnets can do work during part of a cycle but can not do *any* net work. So based on all of the above, it looks as though the SMOT design has managed to cause part of the magnetic flux from the magnets to find a better route than through the ball, while the ball is exiting. Not that there is less flux, just that it is affecting the ball less. ( Or possibly affecting the ball more on the way in. ) If this is the case, I don't see how it could cause any negative effects elsewhere. ( In response to, "I wonder if the energy is draining away the stuff which causes matter to exist." Come on, don't be paranoid man. ;) PS I'm seriously considering investment in magnet companies. Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /********************************************************/ /* I don't think that energy is conserved, but it */ /* doesn't matter if useful over-unity operation works! */ /********************************************************/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 03:07:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 03:06:10 -0700 Date: 01 Jun 97 06:04:09 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Last AND Least? Resent-Message-ID: <"r49WG2.0.1k1.HcKap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7671 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Scott, > Greg, do you have to believe this thing will work before it > does?.... Well, your dimensions are outside the limits set in Greg's list. He says that the ball diameter must be 10% - 25% greater than the magnet height. I gather that if the magnets are too tall then you can't link the ramps, while if they are too short you ca n't get the lift. Complaining about one's rig not working *before* Greg posted that helpful little list is on thing - complaining afterwards seems a trifle odd, Scott? By the way, my post last night may have seemed too 'positive' towards the SMOT; but that's how it came out when I worked through it. Even so, I can't handle the idea that anyone could close the loop. Even the NZ partial replication makes me feel peculia r. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 22:38:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:38:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 19:10:37 -1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT AND (AntiG correlation and Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"1ccHv2.0.Zx1.Fnbap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3566 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mike - > Hello ALL, Regarding msg below regarding > bismuth and SMOT experiment. I was > wondering when someone mentioned using > the glass marble ball filled ferrous oxdid or > iron powder, not sure but adding bismuth to > it, I wonder if it would manifest any unusual > anomolies like greater velocity up the > ramp... Epitaxy has the powder filled glass spheres, I have some powdered bismuth. I offered to send Epitaxy some, but he didn't respond. Might not have seen it, or thought I was joking. I might try it myself, with an epoxy molded ball with powder loaded in when I get time. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 05:58:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 05:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 15:06:58 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: SMOT report form Resent-Message-ID: <"o3_sv1.0.sd3.m7Nap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7677 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, I propose to make a report form for showing current status of SMOT builders ,including specifications and a guide for successful OU verification. May such fields be included: --------------------------- Name/email Location build start date last update date status (phase #, maybe more details) Specs (magnets,ramp,ball sizes, other arrangement data) Free description area Last problem encountered Recommendation Comments Criteria and method for verifying OU General considerations for verifying OU Closed loop [ ] Static energy gain [ ] Kinetic Energy gain [ ] ------------------------------ This form will reside on a WEB site (i.e. JNAUDIN's site) and builders will fill the form then the report and statistics will be manually or automatically updated on a HTML page. This report will give substantial information about the overall SMOT project. And help to clarify the things. I am waiting feedback. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 05:24:25 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 05:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 21:31:56 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Last AND Least? References: <199706010555.AAA14035@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"xtV492.0.bz2.HeMap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3535 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > Gnorts Vorts, > > I have been playing with our 2 ramps for several hours now...most > frustrating! I can now get a single ramp adjusted so the ball will exit the > upper end and fall on the table...but only with a lift about 2/3's of that > needed to allow the first channel to lap over the 2nd ramp's channel. When > I increase the lift to the desired amount, I have to move the magnets in a > little to make the ball run up the ramp again. That puts me in the regime > where the ball _always_ snaps over to one or the other of the magnets arrays > when it gets to the top of the ramp. > > Vital statistics: > > 1. magnet dims: 7.5mm hi, 13mm long, 4mm thick 9.7mm hi, 13mm long, 4mm thick > 2. array size: 8 magnets long by 4 magnets thick Ditto > 3. ball size: 12mm and 11.2mm....12mm seems to work best 12mm as well > 4. channel: 13mm square, 7.7mm opening 12mm square, 9.0mm opening > 5. alignment: ball center level with magnet center ball 1.5mm below magnet centre. 6. Ramp: ? 90mm long, with polished rails. (Very little noise) 7. Back: ? 3x10x104mm Steel How long is the ramp? It should be 13-15mm less than the mag array length. This is somewhat critical. Are you using a steel backing strip? > If I go ahead and limit the lift to the 2/3's value mentioned above, the > ball will fall off the end of the ramp, on to table, and roll away. > However, if I position a 2nd ramp after the first so the ball can't fall all > the way to the table but rather lands on the 2nd ramp, the ball invariably > just stops there at the foot of the second ramp held securely in position by > the nearby ends of the first ramp's magnets. You need to vary the inter ramp linking distance. This is what the notch under the exit is for. The notch allows the adjusting the link position without altering the lift height. I normally use around 12-15mm link distance. > Greg, do you have to believe this thing will work before it does?.... Remember my second ramp. Never could get it to work. No, but it helps. Imagine the time it took me to get my first ramp working. 10 minutes to build and 5 minutes to the first climb and drop. I was very lucky, I got it so right the first time. Maybe I was supposed to? I don't know, but it causes me to ponder some time! Once you get the ramp working, its very solid. After a while, the adjustments become natural and you don't really have to think about them. > Scott Little Hi Scott, Good fun? Actually I feel for you, I know how much you really want it to work. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 05:24:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 05:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 21:38:40 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Phase 2 Details References: <199706010506.WAA25591@italy.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"CKA4F.0.k-2.heMap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3536 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > Your design for SMOT is a masterpiece of work! I am trying to duplicate as > best I am capable of with my skill level. The hardest part is the tuning > part to make the ball ride through the ramps. Many hours I spent playing > with the ramp and magnets today to make the ball travel the course for two > ramps. > > If I might make a suggestion on your kits to help future users: > > You might want to consider having your kit built complete for sale also. > This would save time on the users part in spending many hours in building > the kit. You could find a OEM builder or fellow internet reader/successfull > builder to assemble the kit for an additional fee. All that is required to put the kits together is to insert the ramps into the bases, put the prebuilt magnet arrays on the magnet side supports, insert the pins in the designed holes and release a ball on the flat landing. Some slight magnet adjustment w ill be required, but not much. Other holes will allow adjustments in 0.5mm increments. > I for one would gladly pay twice as much for the kit to have an assembled unit. > > Just a thought, best regards, > Michael > > At 08:18 AM 5/30/97 +0930, you wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >Attached is a gif showing two treatments that can be used on the exit of > >the ramp. The simple one I used initially as the "S" curve is difficult > >to cut using hand tools and I wanted a high initial strike rate on the > >SMOT Phase 1 devices. > > > >All three exits will work : > > Hi Michael, Hope this helps, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 03:31:59 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 03:31:58 -0700 X-Sender: johnnyfg@mail.algonet.se Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 12:09:59 To: From: Johnny Feelgood Subject: Balls running upwards ... Resent-Message-ID: <"r-5cN.0.B72.T-Kap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3534 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I remember a toy a saw as a kid. It was a ball sitting on two slideable pipes. | #+------------------------------X ##B | TOP View. #+------------------------------Y | The ball 'B' was pushed to the left due to the fact that the X&Y end of the pipes where at a higher level then the other side. The aim was to transport the ball 'B' to upways, by moving the X&Y end of the pipes in a special way ... Its possible. exit --- I vote for a flat society - like internet! mailto:JohnnyFG@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~johnnyfg/index.htm X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat May 31 21:58:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: ben@clubelite.com (Ben Tammet ta) To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:52:20 +0000 Subject: Re: SMOT Kit Offer Update (1st June, 1997), Web sites please upd Reply-to: tammetta@mindspring.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"kPPh82.0.Ei5.n4Gap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7666 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, > Web sites who WISH to display this offer for at least 3 months AND > qualify to receive a FREE SMOT Kit, please contact me for the details. Does this mean I can get a FREE SMOT kit for displaying your kit on my web page for 3 months? Everything is in place.... I will attempt to close the loop tommarrow..... Has anyone else besides you done this Greg? Ben Tammetta ben@clubelite.com http://oscar.clubelite.com:8888/smot ###################### # Ben Tammetta # # ben@clubelite.com # ###################### X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 07:01:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 07:00:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 09:00:29 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Last AND Least? Resent-Message-ID: <"I4R_I1.0.rF5.22Oap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7680 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 06:04 AM 6/1/97 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: >Well, your dimensions are outside the limits set in Greg's list. He >says that the ball diameter must be 10% - 25% greater than the magnet >height. I see that...yet it's odd that the larger ball seems to work better (i.e. zooms up the ramp faster and rolls clear easier) than the smaller balls which are closer to Greg's spec...? >Complaining about.... I'm not _complaining_....just reporting, as requested. Others have gotten varying degrees of success with sizes and shapes that depart considerably from Greg's original specs, haven't they? Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 07:08:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 07:08:08 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 10:06:49 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: monteverde@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re : Last AND Least? Resent-Message-ID: <"_wcWX.0.mu4.69Oap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7681 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 01/06/1997 11:04:33 , you wrote : << Jean-Louis - When you say "The V shape of each magnetic ramp must be wide...", do you mean the gap between magnet assemblies must be wide but closer towards parallel in alignment with each other, or that the V must be wide at the entrance with a greater angle betw een the assemblies? The images on your site make it look like the rails are as near to parallel as they can be yet still propel the ball. Is that right? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Not like this, but more like this? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI >> Hi Rick, I agree with you, drawing are better than a long discour, and building is better than long chatting.... The V angle of magnetic ramp is better like this : | | | | | | | | Than : | | | | | | | | Because, interaction between two ramps with a wide angle, reduce the change of the neutral break point, and the fall of the steel ball is easy. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 07:44:28 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 07:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 09:47:38 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: sunbrite@pop.mymail.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Michael C Slivinski Subject: Re: Balls running upwards ... Resent-Message-ID: <"3PQi83.0.BO5.hhOap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3537 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hell all, yes saw the same thing but the pipes and it looked like the ball was truly going up the higher end of the pipes, but a side view showed that the center of the ball was really going loew. I was disappointed, but it was fun watching! kie s. At 12:09 PM 6/1/97, you wrote: >I remember a toy a saw as a kid. It was a ball sitting on two slideable >pipes. > | >#+------------------------------X >##B | TOP View. >#+------------------------------Y > | > >The ball 'B' was pushed to the left due to the fact that the X&Y end of the >pipes where at a higher level then the other side. >The aim was to transport the ball 'B' to upways, by moving the X&Y end of >the pipes in a special way ... Its possible. >exit --- I vote for a flat society - like internet! >mailto:JohnnyFG@algonet.se >http://www.algonet.se/~johnnyfg/index.htm > > > Mike Slivinski sunbrite@mymail.net http://www.myhomepage.net/~sunbrite/ God helps those, that help themselves... so they may help others! MCS X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 08:32:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 08:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 11:29:44 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Last AND Least? References: <199706011400.JAA01114@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"3F7kw1.0.tR6.DNPap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7683 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > (snip) > > I'm not _complaining_....just reporting, as requested. Others have gotten > varying degrees of success with sizes and shapes that depart considerably > from Greg's original specs, haven't they? > You bet, Scott! I also departed from the "sacred specs" for my SMOT. This IS vortex, you know! My single SMOT rig uses 6 Radio Shack ceramic magnets in each array - 2 stacked by 3 long. The overall array dimensions are: 145 mm long 22 mm high 18 mm thick with a 3 mm backing strip. The ball is 38.1 mm dia. (1.5 inch) and the relatively small track is 12 mm wide, 8 mm high, with about 1 mm rails (aluminum chan.). I was able to get a ramp climb and drop off to table following Greg's ideas fairly closely. I could not get roll-away at the *initial* level. In a gross variation from specs, I clamped all components to a flat board. I ran a LEVEL, straight track screwed to the board center. With the magnet arrays also flat on the board (in the Watson V shape), I wound up with a neat magneto-mechanical oscillator but nothing unusual. The track runs about 70 mm (level all the way) past the array exit and ends in a square cut. When I released the ball at the array entrance, I noticed that It punched beyond the "magnetic wall" near the exit and extended about 70% of its diameter past the array exit plane before stopping for the reverse trip. I then placed a large pair of alnico magnetron magnet poles beyond the exit to SUMULATE A SECOND ARRAY - which I don't have. (I'm in the middle of a kitchen tear-out and remodel so I won't have time for much more hardware gathering.) What I'm trying to get at is that I *think* I was getting a potential second-array-entrance condition with a level track run with no height variation. On the flat board my large ball has its center about 5 mm above the top of the magnet arrays - the fric tion is still fairly low because of the large ball rolling on the small track. I'm not trying to upset Greg's sequence here, but if some of you advanced SMOTers are interested, you might try to get multi-array feed through with a level, continuous track. Maybe Greg has already researched this mode and rejected it? Whatever, I'm no t going to have the time to go much farther with my rogue SMOT. For now, beginners should probably stick to Greg's specs if they want success! Maybe the vertical drop is necessary to get gravitational "tunneling" through the magnetic exit potential barrier? With kitchen cabinets falling all around --- Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 08:47:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 08:45:47 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 10:45:36 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Last AND Least? Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"JTsX53.0.io7.gaPap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7686 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 09:31 PM 6/1/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: >> 1. magnet dims: 7.5mm hi, 13mm long, 4mm thick > 9.7mm hi, 13mm long, 4mm thick OUr magnets vary a bit from 7.5mm to nearly 8mm high. Greg, do you think this might be a disabling change? >> 5. alignment: ball center level with magnet center > ball 1.5mm below magnet centre. I have experimented with shimming up the magnets briefly...didn't see any significant change except that it seemed more likely to snap the ball over to one of the magnets at the end of the ramp. > 6. Ramp: ? > 90mm long, with polished rails. (Very little noise) The slanted part of our ramp is 90mm and the rails are nicely polished. We also have a 20mm long level part at the foot of the ramp with a smooth bend made as you suggested with a hacksaw cut. > 7. Back: ? > 3x10x104mm Steel Ours are 3.5x8x106mm right now...they are 2mm longer than the magnets. > >> Greg, do you have to believe this thing will work before it does?.... >Once you get the ramp working, its very solid. One disadvantage we in the States have is a lack of Blu-Tak! My meager supply was donated by Chris Tinsley some time ago. There is a shoddy facsimile here called Handi-Tak that is yellow in color and very soft. It is to Blu-Tak as mud is to concrete. Anyone in the Blu-Tak countries care to trade for a couple of packs?...I can send Duct tape, Velcro, etc. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 03:25:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 03:24:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 00:23:00 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"Yc-Xu2.0.1i.qzfap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7740 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Gnorts - A note on something I just noticed tonight. I had to do some work this evening, so I had little time for smotting. But when I was done working, I was idly playing with a couple of magnets and a horizontal piece of rail, holding the magnets at various angles and watching the ball go back and forth, trapped within the energy well bordered by the ends of the two magnets. Then I had a flash on the geometry of this whole thing. Look down at the shape made by 4 linked Watson ramps: / \ / \ / \ / \ Ok, now the question might occur, can good linking be achieved on a single horizontal section of rail, or must one section rise above the other to get linking? An answer came quickly from four of the large Radio Shack rectangular magnets, one SMOT ball an d a length of horizontal track: Yes. It isn't even hard. I haven't yet linked two or more of Greg's ramps, but the way the ball goes through the multiple magnets on a straight horizontal rail looks like the Watson multi-ramp videos people have posted on their web sites. The ball speeds up an d then slows down at the joints between magnets which correspond to the dropoffs on Greg's linked ramps. But it does keep going until it reaches the end. I made one little two stage (4 magnets total, two per side) ramp on an incline, and the ball dropped through the blue hole at the end just like a nice phase one Watson ramp. The significance of this is, there should be no limit on the length, and therefore altitude, that a single ramp made this way can achieve. Are we making this too hard? Is it true that all we really have to do is just make a single *long* ramp using sawtooth magnet arrays, and avoid the losses and complexity involved with multiple ramp sections with dropoffs? For once ASCII does a fairly decent job of representation. Look again at the little ramp diagram above. Now they're individual magnets on a flat board instead of entire arrays. Put your rail in the middle. Tilt the board up as much as you can but still ha ve the ball make the climb and drop out a blue hole section at the end. Guide it back to the start somehow as a final step. And I'm sure some of the smarter smotters will realize the advantages this simpler geometry would have for the rotary versions you' re secretly working on. ;) Is it really this easy, or will I look at this post in the morning as say, "duh, what *WAS* I thinking?" Oh well, I'm no stranger to embarrassing myself online. I'm going to hit "send" now and go to bed. Happy smotting. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 11:50:44 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:50:32 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Cc: Subject: Re: AntiG correlation and Bismuth Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 10:41:47 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"tGng6.0.TN7.tHSap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3539 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Folks, A while back there was some discussion of an experiment that I purportedly did with a thin sheet of Bi between two magnets. I was not the one who proposed this experiment or discussed it, although I have seen it referred to in the book "Manual Of Free -Energy Devices, V. 2" by Don Kelly. I WAS told by an anonymous source that an induction motor wound with Bismuth wire was tested in an industrial lab and was found to lose 20% of its weight. I mentioned this to Rick and others as a possible pointer to future experiments. I got interested in Bi because, as an element whose permeability was less than that of free space, it seemed likely that EM signals would travel THROUGH the Bi at velocities faster than light. Experiments by Milne and Obelensky show that Maxwellian FT L signals are possible. I was interested in this because of the possiblity that there are natural sources of such FTL EM radiation that could be tapped for power. I speculated that something like this could have been behind the Moray device. I also specu lated that if gravity was correlated with these FTL waves in some way that coils with Bi cores might show weight loss. Rick, did you do any experiments with measuring weight of such coils while excited by various kinds of signals? Its also interesting to note that samples supposedly taken from the Roswell UFO crash show layers of Bi and Mg. The experiment with Bi between two magnets is not particularly interesting to me because I see no anomalies there. Fred At 02:07 PM 5/28/97 -1000, Rick wrote: >>In a message dated 5/25/97 10:27:34 PM, Hal wrote: >> >><< The experiment (described on Vortex) where a thin vertical sheet of >>bismuth between two magnets looses weight when it is on the neutral line >>between two magnets.>> >> >>I missed this. Can you fwd a copy? Thanks. >> >>Hal Puthoff > >I think that was Fred Epps' experiment. I tried it and saw nothing. Fred >said the effect was quite large. > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 11:02:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 10:59:49 -0700 Date: 01 Jun 97 13:57:41 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: No steel strips yet - Barry's computatio Resent-Message-ID: <"0ZDD32.0.rI5.JYRap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7695 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com To: Vortex Several people have asked me if I have backed the array of magnets with an iron strip, per Greg's instructions. The answer is no, and I am seriously out of spec in many other ways, too. The size of the ball versus the height of the magnets, the end of the ramp and many other parameters are wrong. Because I have no iron backing yet, I see mild cogging when the ball moves past the magnet array. I can also feel it when I hold a ball in my fingers and move it through. I have not even begun to replicate Greg's machine. I built Terry Blanton's variation of it, because I had most of the parts lying around, it took me a half-hour, and I wanted to check Terry's roll-away claims. I do not have the proper tools to build the r eal thing. However, even a fake one is instructive. Anyone who wants to follow the discussion is well advised to build something. But unless you build it EXACTLY to spec, to the best of your ability, you cannot judge the o-u claims. If I may say, this is analogous to suggesting back in 1903 that those who wish to understand aviation should build kites. That does not mean kites work like airplanes. It means you can learn from them. Back in 1898 an informal society of aviation enthusiasts in Boston built a number of kites and learned a lot. So did the Wrights with their wing warping kite tests. Frank Stenger writes: you might try to get multi-array feed through with a level, continuous track. . . . . . . Maybe the vertical drop is necessary to get gravitational "tunneling" through the magnetic exit potential barrier? That's my understanding. I don't see how it could possibly work on a level, continuous track. But I don't see how it can work at all! Chris Tinsley writes: Greg wants agreed criteria for OU, but I think that's impossible and probably a waste of time. An online group can't decide things like that. If we ask two people here even for a definition of OU, we'd probably get three such. I disagree. I think the definition is obvious. You begin with the ball standing stock still. You release it without giving it any measurable push. (You verify this releasing on a level rail with no magnets -- it doesn't move.) The ball is drawn by the magnets, moving by itself. It goes around the track completely, and it is still moving when it passes the starting point. If this happens even once it is over unity. It is an apparent violation of the laws of physics. If it happens 10, 100 or 1,000 times it is all the more amazing. I don't see how any scientist could disagree. I realize that Barry Merriman has said he thinks this could be explained by the known laws of physics. I would bet him $1,000 he cannot find a single professor in the entire University of California system who agrees. They will all say: 1. It would be a g ross violation of the First Law if it could happen; but, 2. It can never happen -- absolutely, positively, never!!! Barry should ask around. He should take an informal poll. Furthermore, if you could show these professors Greg's toy working in a closed lo op they would say it is a fake, there must be hidden electromagnets or something like that. Not one will believe his own eyes. You could not persuade one to test it in his own lab: they will refuse to look. If, by some miracle (or by paying a $2000 'consu lting fee') you can get a professor to do a test in the lab, he will cheat. I have seen how professors act when confronted by things like cold fusion data or a test of the Griggs machine. They tie themselves in knots. They fudge the numbers by 2 or 3 even 5 orders of magnitude, rather than admit the truth. And then, when all else fails and they are forced to admit the truth, they will casually ignore their own textbooks! They will say there is no reason why you cannot get 100 megajoules out of a half-gram of fuel -- ho, hum, that's perfectly normal, just an ordinary part of everyday physics. Frank Close says everyone knows that's just inner shell electron bonds.. A boring phenomenon, not worth a second glance. You ask again and again: show me the physics or chemistry textbook where such miraculous fuel is described. They never answer. I *would* bet that, but I never make wagers. Call me old fashioned, but I find betting and lotteries distasteful and vaguely immoral. Call me hypocritical, because I have, of course, risked hundreds of thousands of dollars in business investments, includ ing ~$120,000 or so I have spent on cold fusion ventures. The one thing you cannot call me is cowardly or unwilling to put my money where my mouth is. That, I believe, is what Barry and many other "skeptics" have insinuated with these offers to place bets . I dismiss them all, with contempt. I have already paid my dues with far larger sums of money than any skeptic would ever dare to risk, but I am making a wager with nature (or God, if you will), not with man. Now, Barry proposes (I think) that the initial pull of the magnets will cause the ball to loop around the system for a very long time. Like Scott, I deny this possibility because of experience. I deny it because of experience, and because every related test of magnetic fields that I know of show that they work like gravitational fields: it takes exactly as much energy to move the ball out of the field as you gain by going into it. This has been tested outside the ranks of the o-u wannabees. For example, someone commented that the SMOT might look like a very low-friction closed loop of rails. But I can assure anyone who hasn't played with mechanical things that a half-inch ball will not roll around a track - no matter how perfect - for very long, no matter how hard you shove it. Absolutely right. And you can verify this on your own, without reference to the Smot device, by pushing a ball on a circular track; or having it roll back and forth on a track with inclinations at either end (the test reported here); or by building a smal l pendulum with a steel bearing at the end of a long thread to measure the effects of air resistance. Anyone who does that will instantly see that Merriman's claims are absurd. The ball cannot possibly roll for 1 hour, or 17 hours, from the KE of drop of ~20 cm. And anything that makes it go much faster than a 20 cm drop will require a specially designed track to prevent the ball from flying off. You can drop a ball from 1 meter by suspending it at the end of a 5 meter thread, in a pendulum. There will be no track friction and hence no detectible noise. (Maybe a bat could hear it "whoosh," but I can't.) The only thing that slows it down is air resistance to the ball and thread and the flexing of thread where it is tied to the beam at the top. Yet it will not go for more than an hour, if that. A ball going down a track and periodically falling a few millimeters makes a terrific amount of noise and vibration. It is heated up internally by the eddy currents of the magnets. Furthermore, it would be incredibly difficult to make the magnetic field uniform all the way around the loop at every point, so on the first pass around the ball would probably be captured by a high point in the field. It would oscillate for a few seconds, and then come to dead halt. And, of course, if you did make the field perfectly uniform then it cannot pull the ball in the first place. Barry has obviously miscalculated something by three orders of magnitude. I don't follow his computations, but I have played with enough toys, bearings, bicycles, small pendulums and other things to know he is wrong. When he came up with the answer of 17 hours for the KE equal to a fall of -- what was it, 50 cm? 5 cm? -- he should have realized instantly and intuitively that he was wrong. - Jed X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 11:51:39 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:51:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: RE: electromechanical overunity Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:26:34 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"yWLlj3.0.jZ5.oISap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3541 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi folks, Well, I doubt if anybody's really cares, considering all that's going on, but in the interests of intellectual honesty I will say that I have found the flaw in the parametric electromechanical device that I described some time ago on the list. This hypothetical device consisted of two capacitors with a shared movable central plate. Each cap was linked with an inductor and a load. There was no electrical connection between the two caps, only mechanical. I proposed that as the central plate was vibrated that a parametric current would be generated in each separate electrical system, but that the mechanical loading of the vibrating plate would be zero. The first part of this statement is true: there is a parametric current generated in each system. The second part is false: there is mechanical loading in the system. The parametric currents in each system are such that the voltage across the plates is lowest when the plates are moving together and highest when they are moving apart. Thus there must be work done to move the plates apart and that work is not gained as the plates move together. I have not so far found any holes in the use of varactors or other variable capacitors as overunity components in a parametric circuit. and I am following that lead. Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 11:51:34 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:51:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "free energy list" Subject: Kawai and Takahashi motors Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 11:50:14 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"mFEHY2.0.RZ5.lISap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3540 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi all, Has anybody duplicated or heard of duplications of the Kawai motor? Greg has pointed out that what he is doing with the SMOT has been done before. I take him seriously on this. The Kawai motor looks like it would be the most worthy candidate among other devices to show the same effects as the SMOT. Actually the Takahashi motor with its curving magnet is an even closer analogue, but I haven't looked at it very closely. Does anyone have references to tests of this device? Thanks, Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:24:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 23:05:18 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Symmetry breaking Resent-Message-ID: <"_DkVc.0.Hk3.MPUap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7707 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, I have and theoretical comment on the SMOT. High energy physics is mainly based on symmetry and symmetry breaking. Symmetries have deep meaning on physics. Nobody is alien to CPT (Charge, Parity and the Time symmetries). Generally when a symmetry of the nature is broken then an energy is freed (like nuclear energy). Look at the Watson device. Fields are asymmetric. Mo tion is geometrical and time wise asymmetric. geometrically (parity) asymmetric because the device is not working when the ball is fetched from the exit. Time asymmetric because it is possible to determine whether the video is plated forward or backward. The symmetries issues of the SMOT may be examined deeply and discussed by real physicist. I am afraid to say something wrong about physics. Last statement: If there is an energy around us (like ZPE) and hidden by symmetries, SMOT is a good nominee to free it by means of symmetry breaking. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 12:23:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:21:50 -0700 Date: 01 Jun 97 15:19:31 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: No steel strips yet - Barry's computatio Resent-Message-ID: <"0ebIj1.0.2w.DlSap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7697 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jed, > I disagree. I think the definition is obvious. I agree. But I said that few here will agree with any single definition of OU. I (for example) would say that if the ball starts from rest and clicks and whizzes its way around the track, only to pass through its original position (same mag and grav PE) and keep going - then THAT is OU, defining OU as I do. You have to remember that OU only remains OU until the present definition of C of E is updated to accomodate the device. That's been done once before, to allow for mass-energy conversion. For example, if it could be shown that the putative working SMOT was tapping the ZPE, then an amendment to C of E might not be needed at all, while if it was shown to be a special case, then an exception could be made in the Principle. On the other hand, it might just be that the (putative, remember, we have not yet s een a full replication or demo) working SMOT was doing something really weird like taking heat energy from the environment and making mechanical energy. Second Law violation, but otherwise no problem for C of E. > I realize that Barry Merriman has said he thinks this could be > explained by the known laws of physics. I would bet him $1,000 he > cannot find a single professor in the entire University of > California system who agrees. Jed, if the SMOT really works then there will be no problem in finding any number of profs who'll say absolutely anything at all. I'm just worried that Greg would try to prove something was OU and get people to agree with him. To be honest, I would have difficulty in accepting a closed-loop SMOT if I had painstakingly made it myself; I certainly would assume that one I was shown was a trick. If Greg tries to prove to academic scientists that his gadget works, then I predict that he will just end up fru strated and angry. *If* his device works, he should spread acceptance by replication and by sale of toys - as he appears to want to do. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 12:35:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Jun 97 15:31:16 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: No steel strips yet - Barry's computatio Resent-Message-ID: <"Gr0fo1.0.S6.owSap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7698 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jed sed: >> I built Terry Blanton's variation of it, because I had most of the parts lying around, it took me a half-hour, and I wanted to check Terry's roll-away claims.<< Jed, please don't mislead these folks with the word "claims". I heard you say the word "fascinating" many times while you played with my jerry-rigged device. I'll be glad to come by your office and get your device to exhibit roll-away if you wish. The ball starts with virtually zero momentum in the horizontal plane. Properly adjusted, the ball exits the device with significant momentum in the horizontal plane after rising several mm. I have torn it down and rebuilt it many times. I have confirmed the impact surfaces are level. You can drop a steel ball from many miles and as long as it falls vertically and is internally homogeneous, striking a rigid, horizontal surface will not impart horizontal momentum. I agree with everyone who says build Greg's device per specs. I would also ask Greg, once things have died down a bit, to build one with the graduated flux density with varying layers of magnets as I did. Whether the momentum is imparted by increasing f ield intensity (spreading magnets, a la Watson) or increasing flux density, the device exhibits an anomaly. I'm really concerned with this idea of "wearing out permanent magnets". I have some old AR speakers which are over 30 years old. They played Pink Floyd ("Put Down That Ax, Eugene") exceptionally in the 60's and do so today. Will they still work in the new millennium? Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 12:44:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:42:57 -0700 From: Nackles@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 15:42:19 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: New SMOTer & ramp Resent-Message-ID: <"QVcRY2.0.Cc1.03Tap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7699 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greetings Everyone, Been lurking for a while, got interested in SMOT, and have started building. Got one ramp operating, and a 2nd is being built. Have to depart from Greg's specs right now, as there is a shortage of parts where I live (small town) but have the right p arts on order. Quick question - should I write a short introduction? Or just jump in? I am basically a physicist - BSc in '61 in England. Basic ramp specs: magnets - Radio Shack #640-1877 ferrite, 48 x 22 x 10 mm, magnetized across 10mm dim (found them at 10 for $0.99, got 50) magnets backed by steel bars, 1 - 1" x 1/8" bar each side use 4 magnets per side superglued to steel bar outside track to magnets: 21mm at entrance, 14mm at S curve exit magnet assemblies held by 1-1/2" dissecting pins ball - bearing 14mm dia, ~12gm track - Al channel 13 x 13mm int, 1mm wall, 16cm long (top of lower V to start of S curve) track height: center of ball 1mm below vertical center of magnets S cut on exit end per Greg base - 1/4" foamcore and sheets of balsa With a lot of fiddling, last night I got reproducible ball roll out from the exit, with a track rise of 12mm. Ball will roll out across the table top at an initial vel of ~15cm/sec, starting from rest at entrance. About 7 times out of 10 ball will roll in line of track +- maybe 20 deg., 3 out of 10 it goes off at sharp angles. Table top i s almost level - very slight slope down opposite to direction of ball roll. Some misc. observations: - current magnets too big and strong, am experimenting with moving them father out from track, will replace with smaller ones when they arrive. - it is possible to feel the 'blue hole', holding the ball between finger and thumb. - with these magnets and dimensions, adjustment for roll-out is _very_ touchy indeed, too much so I think. A 0.5mm shift in track/magnet position and roll -out stops. Mike Wilkins X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 12:45:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 12:43:10 -0700 From: Nackles@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 15:42:26 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Some questions from a new SMOTer Resent-Message-ID: <"Wguai2.0.wd1.D3Tap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7700 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com 1. Re the Qfield simulations - has anyone systematically looked at the effects of magnet strength and magnet array positions on the 'blue hole'? With stronger magnets, I think that the hole will be smaller, have a larger gradient around it - and will therefore be harder to hit with the ball. Which would account for the alignment sensitivity I see with the strong big magnets I am using. 2. I see the term 'regauging' thrown around some. Could someone please explain this, or give me a reference or two? I am sort of familier with gauge in the context of electromagnetic theory - is regauging a particular form of gauge transformation? Woul d a gauge transformation that does _not_leave B invariant allow for non CofE? For magnetic fields doing work? 3. Anyone got a US source for those 'magic marbles' - hollow glass balls? Found several jars of Fe powder at my local govt. surplus equipment pusher the other day... 4. I too recall being told/reading that 'magnets cannot do work'. Anyone ever seen a theoretical 'proof' or 'demonstration' of this claim? I suspect it is true for simple dipole fields and the like. But in the SMOT, the topology of the field has been distorted - maybe even changed - might field topology have bearing on the possibility of doing work? 5. As I understand it, in a plasma context magnetic field lines can be broken and reconnected (e.g. in the corona, during mass ejections, etc). Can magnetic field lines be broken and reconnected in more mundane contexts? 'Lines' is of course just an abstraction - are we talking about discontinuities in B and H here? Grateful for some answers and comments... Mike Wilkins X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:49:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:47:37 -0700 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 23:44:25 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New SMOTer & ramp References: <970601154218_56172735@emout05.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"s5nL71.0.bQ7.utUap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7716 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Mike, My magnets also have similar size (40x25x10) I started by making 160mm size magnet block(40x4). It not worked fine and I shortened them to 120mm. I strongly recommend. 14 mm ball may not be drop on strong fields on exit. You may cure it by larger diameter ball. I am using 17mm ball. Naudin uses 25mm! Track aperture is too much. Ball can not synchronize it speed with it rotation on decelerating end part of the track and may slide without reducing its rotation. Polishing the track will boost the performance dramatically. Currently my ramp rise the ball up to 28mm and drop the ball on the table. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 13:04:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Jun 97 15:59:21 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: OU criterion Resent-Message-ID: <"DxzDP.0.-51.uKTap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7702 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Perhaps worth saying why my own criterion for SMOT OU is the way it is. I defined it by saying that if the ball is released at zero velocity, at any point on the circuit - the claimant is allowed to choose it - and it returns to the same point at a non-zero velocity, that satisfies me that it is OU. It has the same gravitational and magnetic PE, it has greater KE, and has done work (and made eddy currents if the ball conducts) with zero energy input (despite what Barry says). Barry's magnet pull is irrelevant, because the magnet push is equal. That is apparent OU. OK, if there is energy available from magnetising the ball, any stuff like that, then I say that this is tiny compared with the eddy current and other losses. Chris (who still won't believe it until he sees it, and maybe not then) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 13:07:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:03:07 -0700 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 16:03:31 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: No steel strips yet - Barry's computatio References: <970601175740_72240.1256_EHB80-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7F2VW1.0._W2.wLTap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7703 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > (snip) The ball cannot possibly roll > for 1 hour, or 17 hours, from the KE of drop of ~20 cm. Absolutely right, Jed! My semi-functional, off-spec SMOT I described earlier - is a good oscillator. With everything on a level board, the large 1.5 inch dia. ball will oscillate the full length of the track, to and fro with no elevation change. The ba ll, on a 12 mm wide track, has fairly low rolling friction - no banging off the end of the rail, etc. The decay in amplitude goes about like this: Time zero -------- initial amplitude about 150 mm 0 + 20 seconds --- down to ~ half amplitude 0 + 100 sec. ----- full stop - maybe 120 excursions or so. What could I do to this rig to make the ball oscillate for one hour?? If Greg's claims are confirmed - look for new physics!! My last Chinese fortune cookie said I had a "magnetic personality" - I had to build at least ONE SMOT ramp, didn't I? A skeptic that "cuts metal", as time permits ------- Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 13:11:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:08:55 -0700 From: Nackles@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:08:16 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Device to recirculate balls? Resent-Message-ID: <"WTKyj3.0.ms2.MRTap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7704 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I remembered that about 10 years ago I got a toy for my son, called 'Spacewarp, The Ultimate Rollercoaster'. And I saw one in a catalog the other day. A set of flexible ~1/8" plastic tubes, used in pairs with plastic clips to form tracks for ~1/2" - 5/8" steel balls. A base with holes, Al vertical rods to support arms that hold the clips. Balls are elevated to the high point by a electric motor driven Archimedes screw. As the tube clips rotate on the arms, tracks can be tilted, loops can be made, etc. Until people get the full closed-loop SMOT running, or for experiments, parts of this device could be handy for recirculating balls on SMOTs? For that matter, an Archimedes screw to lift balls should not be too hard to rig up. Here are the details for the source I found: Bits & Pieces, 1 Puzzle Place, B8016, Stevens Point, WI 54481-7199 24 hr order # 1-800-544-7297. Item is #06-N7791, p.38 in Fall 1996 catalog, $34.95. Was in stock as of Friday last. Mike Wilkins X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 13:45:16 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:45:02 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:44:57 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: can magnets do work? Resent-Message-ID: <"xC3Vp3.0.kR4.DzTap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3542 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Sat, 31 May 1997, Bob Shannon wrote: > > I only get annoyed at folks that make statements about the SMOT device > > and they have never even built one. If you want to shoot it apart, > > thats fine, but first build one. Only seems fair, right? > > Not if you invite theoretical discussion on the subject. Any exactly > why would you assume that its remotely reasonable for you to set any > limits on the discussion over an open list Greg? > > And why do you assume that this discussion of your device is 'shooting > it > apart'? What happened to the process of objective discussion that has > been a part of doing science for all these years, has all that oly been > 'shooting' each other down? Everyone should approach this particular topic with care, since erroneous judgement of the difference between valid skepticism and a hostile attack is a major cause of flamewar behavior. Unfortunately it's VERY hard to avoid trouble with this, since we all possess a large hunk of subconscious motivation. This both can cause us to wrongly hear constructive criticism as being hostile attacks, and can also cause us to unwittingly embed host ility in our comments which were intended only to be constructive. How to avoid this? Is simple awareness of the problem enough to defeat it? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:01:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 13:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Jun 97 16:55:51 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: New SMOTer & ramp Resent-Message-ID: <"J2XC82.0.143.AAUap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7706 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mike, > With a lot of fiddling, last night I got reproducible ball roll > out from the exit, with a track rise of 12mm. Ball will roll out > across the table top at an initial vel of ~15cm/sec, starting from > rest at entrance. Nice to see a fresh voice here. I'm not suggesting that you are claiming anything, but I think we have to agree that if you mean that the ball starts on the channel and ends up rolling across the table upon which the ramp stands, then this is not *clear* evidence of anything much. 15cm /sec as mv^2 is 225m units of KE, which equates (at 981cm/sec^2) via e = mgh to a height of 0.23cm, which is less than the ramp height. Of course, if we had a value for eddy current heating and frictional losses, it might help. > - it is possible to feel the 'blue hole', holding the ball between > finger and thumb. This is interesting. I can feel it too, and very odd it feels. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:25:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:22:40 -0700 Date: 01 Jun 97 17:21:25 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: No steel strips yet - Barry's comput Resent-Message-ID: <"c2j3G1.0.J76.UWUap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7710 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Terry, > I'm really concerned with this idea of "wearing out permanent > magnets". I have some old AR speakers which are over 30 years > old. They played Pink Floyd ("Put Down That Ax, Eugene") > exceptionally in the 60's and do so today. Will they still work > in the new millennium? Nope. They will suddenly demagnetise, and convert the energy which they probably don't have into blasting the entire speaker enclosure into orbit. Be afraid, etc. Chris (who is taking Sunday off, as you will have noticed) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:35:00 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:01:24 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT apology Resent-Message-ID: <"6DzMa1.0.na4.MhUap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3543 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, The net is a special place where free expression is still alive. The Freenrg-l and Vortex-l discussion groups are composed of intelligent, caring adults with a variation of backgrounds, skills, experiences and approaches. I have NO right to DEMAND that discussion of the SMOT device is limited to those who acutally have built a device. I apologize to ALL of you for taking that line. I was VERY wrong. I thank many of you for your private posts on this subject. Your points finally did sink home through my thick SMOT success filled head. I value ALL of your ideas. Can we start again? I have given the SMOT device to the world. Its not mine to control anymore, its now in your hands. With my feet on the ground again, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:44:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:36:34 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:36:28 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New SMOTer & ramp Resent-Message-ID: <"To-jJ2.0.Xt6.YjUap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7713 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 1 Jun 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > I'm not suggesting that you are claiming anything, but I think we have > to agree that if you mean that the ball starts on the channel and ends > up rolling across the table upon which the ramp stands, then this is > not *clear* evidence of anything much. Imagine the whole ramp-assembly as being an energy well. If the guide rails are extended to great lengths before and after a single ramp, and if a ball is released 20cm from the start of the ramp, the ball should roll through the ramp, pass through the " deepest" part of the "well", and roll up the other "side" and halt (perhaps rolling backwards.) Depending on where the center of this "well" resides, the ball can only roll a few tens of cm from the end of the ramp. Friction will reduce this distance, a nd o/u forces will increase it. If the ball continues to roll to a great distance, it indicates o/u performance. Oops, I see what you mean. If a ball is placed on the guide rails right at the start of the ramp, the ball is therefor initially at a small height. If it drops off the other end of the ramp and falls to the tabletop, then it has fallen an extra cm or so , and could easily perform a misleading "roll away" which signifies little. For a "roll away" to signify o/u operation, the ball must drop onto a long length of guide rail rather than onto the tabletop. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:42:46 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:42:49 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:10:48 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Last AND Least? References: <199706011400.JAA01114@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"r6U5b.0.867.OpUap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3544 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > At 06:04 AM 6/1/97 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > >Well, your dimensions are outside the limits set in Greg's list. He > >says that the ball diameter must be 10% - 25% greater than the magnet > >height. > > I see that...yet it's odd that the larger ball seems to work better (i.e. > zooms up the ramp faster and rolls clear easier) than the smaller balls > which are closer to Greg's spec...? Suspect this is because the bigger ball has a larger mag field differential (front to back) than a smaller ball and the force produced is related the the square of the flux density differential? May also be due to the larger ball having less mass below the roll line (less mass moving backward)? You are the mechanical engineer, right? > >Complaining about.... > > I'm not _complaining_....just reporting, as requested. Others have gotten > varying degrees of success with sizes and shapes that depart considerably > from Greg's original specs, haven't they? Yes, but it seems the closer you are to the spec, the better. > Scott Little Hi Scott, I thought your son was going to do the building? Best Regards, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 06:56:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 06:55:14 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: ben@clubelite.com (Ben Tammetta) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:50:46 +0000 Subject: Re: SMOT report form Reply-to: tammetta@mindspring.com Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"8lHYW3.0.A85.1zNap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7679 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hello, This has been on my list of todo's for a while.... Actually I've written a similar program that I just sat down to customize for the FE, OU devices. I hope to get a first version up in a few hours from now..... I post back when its done... later on t oday I'll close the loop :) > I propose to make a report form for showing current status of SMOT > builders ,including specifications and a guide for successful OU > verification. May such fields be included: > --------------------------- > Name/email > Location > build start date > last update date > status (phase #, maybe more details) > Specs (magnets,ramp,ball sizes, other arrangement data) > Free description area > Last problem encountered > Recommendation > Comments This helps, Thanks > Criteria and method for verifying OU > General considerations for verifying OU > Closed loop [ ] > Static energy gain [ ] > Kinetic Energy gain [ ] > ------------------------------ > will fill the form then the report and statistics will be manually or > automatically updated on a HTML page. Yes that's how it will work ... and you can go back and edit some information. > This report will give substantial information about the overall SMOT > project. And help to clarify the things. Yep! > I am waiting feedback. You just read it! I'm one step ahead :) I'll post when it's up, later, Ben Tammetta ben@clubelite.com ###################### # Ben Tammetta # # ben@clubelite.com # ###################### X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:57:42 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:57:01 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:56:02 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Bearden Questions To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"8AVLQ2.0.rx7.g0Vap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3545 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id OAA32686 To: Free Energy List A little over a year ago, I read an document entitled "The Final Secret of Free Energy", by T.E. Bearden, which I downloaded from the web. In response to that document, I composed this letter to Tom Bearden, but I did not know his address, so I am posting it here in the hopes that someone here knows his address and can forward it to him. Also, perhaps someone can venture an answer to some of these questions. However, I should point out that it is unlikely that these questions will make much sense to those who have not read the document, and I am not qualified to explain the meaning of the contents of that document. So please have a look at that document so yo u know the context on the questions before you venture an answer. The most significant exception to this rule that occurs to me would be if you know enough about semiconductor physics that you can shed some light on the meaning of the term "relaxation tim e" on this context (see question 2), in which I would welcome any sort of enlightenment, regardless of weather you have or have not read the document described here. I considered appending a copy of the document to this message so that others could more easily see what I was talking about, but I decided that it would be too big for the mail list. So I can only recommend that others should have a look at the document a t http://hack.umt.se/elektromagnum/physics/Bearden/ The_Final_Secret_of_Free_Energy_with_Comment/ Perhaps it is also somewhere under http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ but I could not find it there, much to my surprised. -------------------------------------------------------------- To: Dr. Tom Bearden From: Ralph Griffin ralph_griffin@compuserve.com I am an electrical engineer with 15 years of experience designing, testing, and analyzing electrical power converters. Most of the power converters I have worked with use semiconductor switches operating at a high frequency to control the flow on power. I have also designed and analyzed many small transformers and inductors for use in these high frequency applications. I also have a great interest in the field of free energy. I found your "Final Secret" paper to be more informative than most. Yet still, I do not feel that I have a sufficient grasp on this design concept to proceed. I have some questions which I have lis ted below. Please try to find some time to answer these question. I realize that the list is quite lengthy. This is partially due to my verbose style of writing. Sometimes I ask the same question several different ways, just to be sure that the true intent of the question is understood. Sometimes I develop a question wi th a long lead-in, just to get the subject matter nailed down first. Sometimes, I suggest possible answers to the question, just to clarify the intent of the question. I do not expect concrete answers to every question. Any insight you can offer would be appreciated. I know perfectly well that some of these question may be the result of my own misunderstanding of the meaning of your text. So any correction is welcome. Your response would be greatly appreciated. Question 1: ------------------------------------------------- This question is about the relationship between the relaxation time of a degenerate semiconductor material and the time delay which is exhibited by a circuit employing that material. To explain the nature of the question, suppose we have two coils made of the same degenerate semiconductor material. We will refer to these as Coil #1 and Coil #2. We assert that: Coil #2 has 4 times the diameter of Coil #1. This leads to the conclusion that: Coil #2 has 4 times the magnetic path length of Coil #1, and Coil #2 has 4 times the circumference of Coil #1, and Coil #2 has 16 times the magnetic cross-sectional area of Coil #1. We also assert that: Coil #2 has 0.5 times the number of turns of Coil #1. This leads to the conclusion that: Coil #2 has the same inductance as Coil #1, since the inductance is proportional to the square of the number of turns times the magnetic cross-sectional area divided by the magnetic path length. 0.5 * 0.5 * 16 / 4 = 1 We also assert that: Coil #2 has 2 times as many strands of wire in parallel as compared to Coil #1. The same size wire is used in both coils, so Coil #2 has 2 times as much total cross-sectional area of conductor as compared to Coil #1. This leads to the conclusion that: Coil #2 has the same DC resistance as Coil #1, since the DC resistance is proportional to the circumference times the number of turns divided by the total cross-sectional area of conductor. 4 * 0.5 / 2 = 1 Since both coils have the same DC resistance, and since both coils use the same size wire, both coils will have the same AC resistance as a function of frequency, where AC resistance is computed according to the conventional interpretation of skin effect. We may also conclude that (very important): While the current in the coil is not changing (while dI/dt = 0), the electric field strength along the length of the wire (in volts per meter) for coil #2 is 0.5 times as strong as for coil #1, since the field s trength is inversely proportional to the circumference times the number of turns. 1 / ( 4 * 0.5) = 0.5 Summary of conclusions so far: 1) Both coils have the same inductance. 2) Both coils have the same DC resistance. 3) Both coils have the same AC resistance as computed according to the conventional interpretation of skin effect. 4) The electric field strength along the length of the wire for coil #2 is 0.5 times as strong as for coil #1. If both coils are driven by the same voltage, will both coils exhibit the same time delay (caused by the relaxation time of the material) before current begins to rise in a linear fashion like a regular inductor? On the one hand, we would be inclined to say that they would both exhibit the same time delay because they are both composed of the same material with the same relaxation time. On the other hand, we would be inclined to say that coil #2 would have a longer time delay because the field strength in the wire is half as great as for coil #1. It seems intuitively obvious that a coil containing an extremely small amount of degenerate semiconductor material will fail to produce the same delay as a coil containing an ample amount of the same material. Which answer is right? What is the relationship between the relaxation time of the material, and the time delay exhibited by a coil made of that material being driven by a given voltage? It seems plausible that for a given material, there is some kind of an optimum level of field strength (volts per meter) which may be selected using the following rule. Operation at field strengths substantially above this level will produced a substantia lly smaller delay time in the circuit, but operation at field strengths substantially below this level will NOT produced a substantially greater delay time in the circuit because the delay time does not exceed the relaxation time. Is this true? Question 2: -------------------------------------------------- According to my level of understanding, "relaxation time" is a property of a semiconductor junction which tends to limit the speed at which the conductivity of the junction can decrease in response to a reversal in the voltage across (or current through) that junction. The relaxation time is caused by the presents on minority carriers in the material which take time to be swept away or recombined. These minority carriers are present because they were injected into the material by the action of electrical current flowing across the junction from the adjoining material on the other side of the junction where those same carriers are majority carriers. However, the "Final word" paper seems to indicate that the degenerate semiconductor material is a homogeneous material (no junctions), and so my definition and explanation is inadequate in this context. What definition and explanation for the term "relaxa tion time" is appropriate for this context? Also, my understanding of "relaxation time" is that it tends to limit the speed of decrease of conductivity, but it does not tend to limit the speed of increase of conductivity. This limited view of relaxation times comes from one whose only experience in dealing with this problem is in dealing with the reverse recovery time of diodes and the turn-off delays and secondary breakdown in bipolar power transistors. So it is not obvious to me how relaxation time can cause a delay in conduction. Even the name " relaxation time" tends to suggest delayed turn-off more than delayed turn-on. The text of the document states "Relaxation Time: The time it takes for the free electrons in a conductor (or material) to reach the skin of the wire after potential is applied, is of course called the relaxation time. ... In copper, the relaxation time i s incredibly rapid. It's about 1.5 x 10^-19 sec." This almost sounds like skin effect. However, according to the conventional interpretation of skin effect, the electrons are already at the skin of the wire (as they are already everywhere in the conductor) and they do begin to move immediately on the ski n when a potential is applied, but they do not begin to flow immediately in the center of the conductor. At first, the current density profile is similar to what it would be if the conductor were a hollow tube instead of a solid conductor, so there is les s cross sectional area available for the current to flow through, so the resistance is higher at higher frequencies. This is based on an elector magnetic analysis of the current density profile across the cross sectional area of the conductor. The analysi s takes into account the electrical conductivity and the magnetic permeability of the conductor material, but it does take into account any other material properties such as that which would have a value of 1.5 x 10^-19 sec in the case of copper. So it fa r from obvious how skin effect could be related to relaxation time. Is the relaxation time a fundamental property of the material, or is it dependent on the field strength? Is it dependent on the wire size or other macroscopic geometric variables? If I were working for a company which was trying to make this technology work, I (or someone like me) would probably have to write a specification for a degenerate semiconductor material which could be submitted to a laboratory for quote. Such a specifica tion would need to include a rough list of the materials and processes used in the production of such a material. It would need to contain realistic requirements for relaxation time and conductivity and mechanical properties. This document would also need to contain a section specifying the test methods used to verify that the material meets the requirements listed in the specification. This section of the document would need to describe the test used to verify the relaxation time. This test would have to be based of purely conventional, non-controversial principals upon which both buyer and seller could agree that it was a valid test. What sort of test would you recommend here? A good description of such a test could be very enlightening regarding the meaning of the term "relaxation time" in this context. Question 3: ----------------------------------------------------- If degenerate semiconductor material is drawn into a wire, and if insulation is added to the wire, and if the wire is wound into a coil, is this a suitable collector? Is the inductance of the coil nothing more than a coincidental properly? Is the inductan ce of the coil a nuisance property? Suppose we have two identical coils connected in series. If we placed them near each other with their axes apposed to each other (we know that the inductance would be reduced), would the amount of energy we can generate be any more or any less than if the re axes were aligned? If we wound the coil on a ferromagnetic core (we know that the inductance would be increased), would the amount of energy we can generate be any more or any less than if there were no core at all? Question 4: ------------------------------------------ This question is based on the text of the "Final Secret" paper which says "This is important: In cycle two, the potentialized collector (with its finite amount of excess trapped EM energy) and the load are connected in a completely separate circuit, and o ne that is closed, with no connection at all to the original source of potential (in this case, to the battery). Specifically, this 'load and potentialized collector' circuit is completely separate from the primary source; during cycle two the primary so urce (the battery) is not connected to anything." This question focuses on the terms "completely separate" and "no connection at all". It is understood that the collector must be switched away from the input battery and onto the load after a certain time delay. But when the collector was connected to the battery, there were in fact two connections: one connection from the plus terminal o f the battery to the collector, and the other connection from the minus terminal of the battery to the other terminal of the collector. Is it really necessary to break both of these connections from the battery to the collector, or is it sufficient to break just one of the connections from the battery to the collector? It would seem to be sufficient to break only one of the two connection s because that would be sufficient to insure that no current could flow from the battery into the collector. Is this true? Figure 2 of the paper is consistent with the text. It shows a coil being connected to a battery or a load through a double pole, double through switch. However, the switch will arch (very inefficient) if the collector is conducting any current (even a lit tle bit of current) when it is switched from the battery to the load, and the voltage sustained by that arch would cause the voltage on the collector to be reversed in comparison to the voltage which was applied by the battery, and so it may tend to count eract the effects that were produced by momentary connection to the battery, and this counteractive effect would come into play before the energy could by delivered to the load (during the switching transition). To overcome this type of problem, we usuall y use diodes. Also, when working at high frequencies, we need to use semiconductor switches instead of mechanical switches. These devices act like single pole, single through switches which can resist voltage in only one direction. Any description of the switching requirements would not be complete unless it identified how many devices of this type are required and in what arrangement. In light of these difficulties, I suggest the following circuit as an implementation of the requirements. The circuit is shown in the form of an ASCII schematic. It must be view or printed using a mono-spaced font (not a proportional space font). ______\_____________|/|______________ | | |\| | _|_ + | _____|_____ | \./ ----- | | | --- | Collector | ----- ----- |___________| ----- --- | | | | | |______/______|______|\|_____|_______ +Vout _|_ |/| \./ Both switches turn on at the same time to connect the collector to the battery. Both switches turn off at the same time to allow the collector to connect to the load through the diodes. When the two switches are on, the diode are reverse biased, so the di odes act like switches that are off. When the two switches are off, if the collector attempts to conduct any current in the direction corresponding to the voltage that was previously applied by the battery, then the diodes will be forward biased, so the d iodes act like switches that are on. But here is the catch. When the two switches are off, the collector is connected to the load (through the diodes) which is connected to ground which is connected to the battery. So in a remote way, the collector is still connected to the battery. Is this a violation of the rule that the collector must have "no connection at all to the original source of potential" ? If this is a violation of the rule, then how can we solve this problem? If we remove the ground connection on either side of the circuit, then we may make the problem worse instead of better for the following reason. If we remove the ground connection on either side of the circuit, then the two sides of the circuit are floating with respect to each other, so there is no more control over the voltage of one side with respect to the other. When the switches close, we may have a situation where all the rever se voltage is on one diode while the other diode is slightly forward biased, conducting small amounts a leakage current to or from the load, so the diodes may not be acting like good switches that are all the way off. When the switches open, we may have a situation where all the forward voltage is across one of the switches while the other switch is slightly reverse biased which is a direction which that switch is not designed to sustain, so the switch may conduct small amounts of leakage current when it is supposed to be off, so the collector is still slightly connected to the battery. There will not be much current flow between the collector and the potential source when the switches are open. This is true regardless of weather the ground connections are there or not. The problem is a lack of understanding of the rule. If the preceding circuit is OK with both ground connections as shown, then how about this next circuit? _____________________________________ | | | _|_ + | _____|_____ | \./ ----- | | | --- | Collector | ----- ----- |___________| ----- --- | | | | | |______/______|______|\|_____|_______ +Vout |/| If the collector were just an ordinary inductor, then this circuit would have all the same currents as the preceding circuit. The biggest difference would be that there are half as many switches and diodes with twice as much voltage across them, and we go t rid of the switch on the plus terminal of the battery which is more complicated to control when working with present-day semiconductor switching devices. Now the collector is always connected to the battery, but only at one terminal (not two), so there is no obvious way that the collector can interact with the battery. Is this a violation of the rule? If so, why? How can the collector interact with the battery without connecting to both terminals of the battery? In most cases, it should not be necessary to ask a question like this. It should be obvious that switching only one side will work just fine. However, in the case of this subject matter, it seems more appropriate to ask instead of assuming. How can any tw o circuits have any effect on each other when they are connected to each other by only one connection without any return path? Does the free energy converter put a new twist on Kirkoff's current law? I don't mean that sarcastically. Some of the material t han I have read on this subject has actually left me with a bewildered feeling of doubt regarding this question. Question 5: ------------------------------------------------ It is understood that a small amount of power will be extracted from the input battery and a greater amount of power will be delivered to the load. It is understood that some of the power that is delivered to the load must be redirected back to the input battery to replenish the input battery, or else the input battery will eventually run down. Some of the power can be redirected from the output back to the input battery using a conventional power converter with a normal efficiency such as 90%. In this case, would a capacitor work just as well as a battery? Is there something special about the battery chemistry that makes it work better than a capacitor in this case? Would it matter what type of capacitor we used (ceramic or electrolytic)? Of course, the capacitor would require us to employ some sort of additional circuit to jump start the system. Of course, the capacitor will have a lower capacity in terms of coulombs per volt at very low frequencies when compared to a battery of the same size. But other than these obvious (and tolerable) differences, is there something special about a battery that is really required to make the free energy converter work? Question 6: ------------------------------------------------- Is it true that for any given circuit, there is a fixed amount of energy per cycle that can be withdrawn from the collector? Is it true that the greatest amount of power output (energy per unit time) can be extracted from the circuit by switching it at th e highest possible frequency that does not go so high that the switching period is substantially less than the relaxation time? Suppose we have two different types of degenerate semiconductor material to choose from. We will refer to these as material #1 and material #2. We assert that material #2 has a relaxation time that is 10 times more that material #1. So the maximum switchi ng frequency of material #2 is one tenth of the maximum switching frequency of material #1. Of course the amount of energy that can be extracted from the material on each cycle will depend of the type of material used. Is there a strong relationship between the relaxation time and the amount of energy that can be extracted from the material on e ach cycle? Should we expect that material #2 can produce something near to 10 times more energy per cycle than material #1? If this is true, then it would seem that we can get nearly the same amount of power from material #2 as we could for the same amount of materi al #1, while switching #2 at one tenth of the frequency of #1. So we might as well use material #2 because it is easier to work with lower switching frequencies. Is this true? Should we expect that material #2 can NOT produce anywhere near 10 times more energy per cycle than material #1? If this is true, then it would seem that we can NOT get nearly the same amount of power from material #2 as we could from the same amount of m aterial #1, while switching #2 at one tenth of the frequency of #1. So we should use material #1 and do what ever is takes to switch at the higher frequencies because it will give us more power for the same amount of material. Is this true? Should we expect that other problems may occur at lower frequencies such as material #2 being more brittle than material #1, or such as material #2 having a lower conductivity than material #1? Can you provide any sort of information indicating at what va lue relaxation time these properties are likely to become highly problematic? Question 7: --------------------------------------------------- Is there any reason to expect that using semiconductor switches (such as power MOSFET's) will prevent the free energy converter from working as well as if we used mechanical switches such as a brushes on a contact wheel? If so, what is the problem with us ing semiconductor switches? Question 8: -------------------------------------------------- This question is based on the text of the "Final Secret" paper which says "The Wiring And the Collector Must Be of Degenerate Semiconductor (DSC) Material.[26]" This question focuses on the term "Wiring". It is understood that the collector must be made of a degenerate semiconductor material. Is it also necessary to use degenerate semiconductor material for all of the wiring connections between the collector and the battery and the switch? The battery itself contains internal electrical connections and terminals that are made of a regular conductor (not a degenerate semiconductor). Must we also rebuild the battery to insure that all the metal conductors have been replaced by degenerate semi conductors? The switch may be packaged using metal terminals (not degenerate semiconductor). Must we repackage the switch to insure that the terminals and contact wires are made of degenerate semiconductors? The switch itself may be made using metal contacts or silicon semiconductor (not a degenerate semiconductor). Must we also redesign the switch to be made out of all degenerate semiconductors? If it is possible to build a working circuit using more convenient materials in the battery or switch, then why would it not also be possible to build a working circuit using more convenient materials for the interconnection between the collector and batt ery and switch? After all, the conventional power dissipation (I*I*R losses) in a well designed set of regular metal interconnections would be far less than the power dissipation (I*I*R losses) in the battery or switch. Question 9: ---------------------------------------------------- This question is based on the text of the "Final Secret" paper which says "You can use either a coil or a capacitor as the collector, but its 'conductive' material has to be degenerate semiconductor material". This question focuses on the term "capacitor" . It is understood that a coil of wire made of a degenerate semiconductor material can be used as a collector of free energy using the following process: 1) A voltage is applied to the coil. 2) The current does not begin to flow until after a delay. 3) After the delay time, switch the coil away from the input battery and onto the output load. 4) The coil applies a current to the load while sustaining a load voltage. In a conventional inductor coil, energy is stored in a form that is manifested as "current memory". The relaxation time is also manifested as a form of "current memory". So it makes sense that the relaxation time can be exhibited in a deviant sort of coil . How does this work with a capacitor? In the case of a capacitor, energy is stored in a form that is manifested as "voltage memory". How can the relaxation time be recast into a form of "voltage memory"? The conversion between capacitor circuits and inductor circuits usually involves a conversion between current and voltage. We can reverse all the currents and voltages to get the following description, but is it correct? 1) A current is forced to flow through a capacitor 2) The voltage does not begin to rise until after a delay. 3) After the delay time, switch the capacitor away from the input current source and onto the output load. 4) The capacitor applies a voltage to the load while sustaining a load current. It seems like something is wrong here. It seems like the special properties would need to be in the dielectric insulator instead of the conductor in order for this scheme to work. But all discussion of special properties, so far, has centered around a sor t of delayed conduction response within the conductor. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:57:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:56:11 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Bedini Questions To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"uYulL1.0.Zt5.W1Vap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3546 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id OAA32742 To: Free Energy List I am sending this letter to John Bedini, but I am also posting it here because I hope that perhaps someone can venture an answer to some of these questions. Also, I thought that the readers of this list might find it interesting to read about my implement ation of the battery-based free energy circuit. This circuit was built and tested, but it has been sitting on the shelf in a non-functional state for many years now. If John Bedini is on the free energy list (freenrg-l,@eskimo.com), then I invite him to respond via the list because I think that the other members of the list would be intrested in his responce. --------------------------------------------------------------- To: John Bedini From: Ralph Griffin ralph_griffin@compuserve.com I am an electrical engineer. I have spent all 15 years of my career specializing in electrical power conversion. About 12 years ago, I read a document published by Tesla Book Company entitled "Experiments with a Kromrey and Brandt-Tesla Converter built by John Bedini, with comments by Tom Bearden", by Eike Mueller. I built a circuit based on the information I found in there, but I did not succeed in producing free energy. I have some questions about this circuit which I hope you can answer. The document described a type of free energy converter based on four batteries connected in a charge/discharge ring. I was unable to understand the explanations regarding why it should work. I studied the various designs that were shown in the documentati on. It seemed to me that these designs had some serious problems, such as: 1) There are too many switches and diodes in series for such a low battery voltage (5V or 12V). It seems that a great deal of the energy would be lost in the transistors and diodes, leaving little remaining to be recovered at the output. 2) The charge current is no more than half the discharge current (two batteries in series charging two batteries in parallel, or batteries being charged half as often as they are being discharged). So the free energy source would have to be very powerful indeed to overcome such a disadvantage. 3) The transistor/four-battery circuits (similar to figure 3 at the end of this message, except that those circuits use transistors instead of switches) appear to be shorting out the batteries in a convoluted fashion. It appears that the only thing that l imits the current is the voltage drop in the transistors and diodes and other power losses in the circuit, and it is uncertain how much of that current would find its way to the output load, especially when that load has a fullwave bridge (loosing another two diode drops) to convert the AC to DC. Also, current flowing through the load may tend to discharge the lower two batteries more than the upper two batteries. Fortunately, the circuit labeled as the original diagram of Mr. R. Brandt (similar to figure 2 at the end of this message) does not appear to have the same problem as the other circuits. The Brandt circuit shows switches instead of transistors, but at least it makes it possible to conceive of how a transistor/four-batter y circuit could be built which would operate in a manner similar to the Brandt circuit with controllable current flow. I finally decided that the only concept that I could borrow from this document was the fact that the battery was subjected to a large AC square wave current which repeatedly crossed back and forth between charging and discharging the battery. This is supp osed to produce an effect which enables the extraction of energy from the system without discharging the battery. I designed and built a circuit consisting of one battery, one switch, one diode, and one inductor having two coils. When the switch (n-channel power MOSFET) closes, current flows out of the battery, through the inductor, and through the switch. While the switch remains closed, the inductor current continues to steadily increase, which indicates increasing energy storage within the inductor as the energy is extracted from the battery. The rate of increase of the inductor current (in Amps per second) is equ al to the voltage divided by the inductance. When the switch opens, the voltage of the inductor inverts, and the diode begins to conduct as current flows from the inductor back into the battery. While the diode is conducting, the inductor current continue s to steadily decrease, which indicates decreasing energy storage within the inductor as the energy is re-injected back into the battery. The two coils are tightly coupled, so the current can jump from coil to coil without a substantial loss of energy sto rage in the inductor. So energy is forced from the battery into the inductor, and from the inductor back again into the battery, repeatedly on every cycle. This process is quite efficient. The diode current (while recharging the battery) is equal to the switch current (while d ischarging the battery). The switch is closed (discharging) for about 53% to 58% of the time. The number of turns on the diode winding of the inductor is equal to the number of turns on the switch winding. The magnitude of change in the inductor current over the course of one half cycle (Amps per second times the length of time for the half cycle) was less than 30% of the average current over the half cycle as long as the frequency was above 10Khz. So the i nductor current (in one winding or the other) was always far above zero. At higher frequencies, the inductor current wave forms appeared to be nearly square (the sloped parts appeared flat). The inductor had an inductance of 0.32mH and saturated at 10A. I kept the test current down around 6A. Failure to stay below the saturation current level of the inductor would cause poor coupling between the two windings (bad for efficiency) and current spikes (stressful to the power MOSFET). Testing much over 6A woul d have produced poor efficiency due to the power loss of current flowing through the resistance of the inductor windings (0.02 Ohm) and the MOSFET (0.055 Ohm). The percentage of time that the switch was closed was automatically adjusted by the control circuit to maintain the peak current at whatever value I selected. In the terminology of my profession, I could say that I designed and built a buck-boost converter (flyback converter) with its input and output both connected to the same battery. The converter was operated deep in continuous conduction (meaning the value of the sum of the ampere turns of the main inductor was always well above zero, or the average of the sum of the ampere turns was well above half the peak to peak ripple of the sum of the ampere turns). The duty cycle was current-programmed (meaning a cu rrent feedback signal was added to the ramp signal which was used by the pulse width modulator to control the duty cycle.) I tested the converter over a range of frequencies from 3Khz to 300KHz. That is the widest I could reach with one inductor design. I used a 12V, 12A-Hr motorcycle battery with very clear walls so I could see any unusual changes in the appearance of the battery electrodes. I noted that the resistance of the battery seemed to be quite low at these high frequencies. The high frequency AC voltage at the battery terminals caused by the AC current flowing through the battery seemed quite low compared to DC voltage changes that w ould be seen at the battery terminals caused by the same magnitude of DC current flowing through the battery over a much longer period of time such as 10 seconds. I attribute this to the electro-chemical nature of the battery where less voltage is require d to move a sea of ions over a short distance as compared to moving the ions across the whole length of the electro-chemical circuit including the liquid/solid interface at the electrode. Besides, this low AC voltage on the battery terminals, I saw no other unusual behavior. I slowly swept the circuit over the full range of frequency from 3Khz to 300Khz. I tried operating the circuit at various states of charge of the battery. However, I never found any condition where the battery voltage did not continue to decrease. I also tried setting up an external power supply to prevent the battery from going dead while searching for the magic operating point, but I never found a point where that external supply current tended to be substantially reduced as it should have done if the b attery had begun to self-sustain. I have included in this message a SPICE listing and an ASCII schematic depicting the circuit (figure 1) I would like to resume the study of this circuit, if only I had some direction to go. Can you help by answering any of the following questions? Is there more to it than just putting a high AC current through the battery terminals as I have done? If so, what am I missing? (I am not interested in producing strange effects. I am only interested in producing useful output energy.) What frequency should the battery be excited at? What kind of battery should be used? How much current should be applied to the terminals of the battery relative to the capacity of the battery? What state of charge (somewhere between dead and full charge) should the battery be tested at? By adjusting the turns ratio of the inductor, I can increased the peak charging current while decreasing the percentage of time spent charging, or I can increased the percentage of time spent charging while decreasing the peak charging current. Should I a djust the turns ratio up or down or leave it unchanged? It would not be easy while conserving energy, but it may be possible to adjust the rate of transition from charging to discharging or visa versa. (It is currently at about 12000000 Amps/sec.) Should I decrease the rate of transition from charging to disch arging? Should I decrease the rate of transition from discharging to charging? Following is the SPICE listing of the circuit which I described above, and which I built and tested: * VBAT is a 12V, 12Amp-Hr battery VBAT 1 0 12.0 * L1A, L1B, K1 form an inductor with two windings. Each * winding has an inductance of 0.32 milihenries, and the two * windings are tightly coupled (coupling coefficient = 0.99). * The inductor saturates at 10 Amps. * Resistance = 0.02 Ohms for each windings L1A 1 2 0.32m L1B 3 1 0.32m K1 L1A L1B 0.99 * MQ1 is SPICE notation for Q1 * Q1 is a 100V, 60A n-channel Power MOSFET, Rdson = 0.055 Ohms * External signal must be applied to the gate (node 4). * Drain Gate Source MQ1 2 4 0 M1MOD * DCR1 is SPICE notation for CR1 * CR1 is a 45V, 100A Power Shottky Diode * -->|-- DCR1 0 3 D1MOD * DCR2 and DCR3 are SPICE notation for CR2 and CR3. * CR2, C1, and CR3 form a voltage clamp which absorbs energy * stored in the leakage inductance of L1A when Q1 turns off. * This prevents the appearance of uncontrolled voltage spikes * on Q1, and thus it prevents damage to Q1. * CR3 has a zener voltage of 50.0V * CR3 can be replaced by a power converter which efficiently * recovers most (like 90%) of the energy back to the battery * voltage at the external power in/out terminal (node 6). DCR2 2 5 D2MOD C1 5 0 10u DCR3 0 5 D3MOD * L2 is a 1 milihenry inductor connecting the battery to the * outside world. Current can flow from the outside world to the * battery to keep the system from running down. Or if the system * produces free energy, then current can flow from the battery to * the outside world at a rate that is completely independent of the * magnitude of AC current in the battery. If you just connect the * battery straight to the outside world without going through L2, * then some of the AC current produced by L1 would be directed to * the outside world instead of the battery. That would be * undesirable because the system theoretically depends on this AC * current in the battery to produce free energy, and because the * noise is undesirable for circuits in the outside wor ld. Any * attempt to reduce the noise by adding capacitors would only tend * to steal more AC current away from the battery. L2 enables * connection to the outside world without reducing the magnitude of * AC current in the battery. L2 1 6 1.0m * Perhaps, if L1B and CR1 were interchanged (while keeping the same * direction relative to the + and - terminals of the battery), it * would reduce the effective interwinding capacitance of L1 (it * would reduce the amount of current which is forced thro ugh the * interwinding capacitance of L1 on each switching transition) * which would tend to reduce the switching losses. * L1B 0 3 0.32m * DCR1 3 1 D1MOD Following are various ASCII schematics depicting the circuits described above. They must be viewed/printed using a mono-spaced font (not a proportional spaced font). Figure 1 below: The circuit which I built and tested. _______________________________ | | | | | | | ) || | VBAT | *| ) || L2 + | (12V) ) || ( ) || ----- ) || ( L1 ) || --- ) || ( |_________ External ----- ) || ( Power In/Out --- |* | CR2 | | |_______|\|____________________ | | | |/| | | | | | | | CR3 | CR1 | ----|| Q1 | C1 | (50V) | __|__ -->-||---- Gate ----- __|__/ | /_\ |---|| Drive ----- / /_\ | | | | | |_________|______|____________________|_________| _|_ \./ Figure 2 below: Four battery circuit which does NOT appear to be shorting out the batteries in a convoluted fashion. Switches S1, S3, and S6 close together. Switches S2, S4, and S5 close together. S1 _____\_________ | | S2 |____|/|________|____/_____ + | |\| | | | ----- | |___|\|____| --- | | |/| | + ----- | | ----- --- | | --- ___|/|___| | | ----- | |\| | | | --- | \ S3 | | |___|\|___ | | | | | |/| | | |____|/|___| | S4 / | | + | |\| | | | | ----- |___|\|____| | | --- |/| | + | | ----- ----- | | --- --- | |___|/|___|____|/|___ ----- | | |\| |\| | --- | | | ___|\|____|___|\|___| | S5 | | |/| |/| | |____\_______________| | | | | S6 | |_____ LOAD ____|________________/___| Figure 3 below: Four battery circuit which appears to be shorting out the batteries in a convoluted fashion. Switches S1, S3, and S6 close together. Switches S2, S4, and S5 close together. S1 _____\_________ | | S2 |____|/|________|____/_____ + | |\| | | | ----- | |___|\|____| --- | | |/| | + ----- | | ----- --- | | --- ___|/|___| | | ----- | |\| | | | --- | \ S3 | | |___|\|___ | | | | | |/| | | |____|/|___| | S4 / | | + | |\| | | | | ----- |___|\|____| | | --- |/| | + | | ----- ----- | | --- --- | |___|/|___|_______________ ----- | | |\| | --- | | _______________|__________|___|\|___| | S5 | | |/| | |____\____| | | | | S6 | |____ LOAD _____|________________/___| X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:21:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:19:44 -0700 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 15:16:04 -0700 From: Patrick Reavis To: vortex-l Subject: another webpage... Resent-Message-ID: <"Lzfyu2.0.At5.lTUap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7709 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greetings Vortexians! I've posted some of Greg's and Jean-Louis' data to my webpage. The first thing you will notice is that I'm no webpage designer! If anyone out there in cyber-ville has any suggestions for improvement, I'll gladly implement them. Just click on the flashing neon sign "SMOT". Pleasant day to all Patrick PS. Thanks to Both Greg and Jean-Louis for their efforts as well as their graphics... -- The Double Naught Spy http://ro.com/~preavis X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 15:27:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 15:25:10 -0700 Date: 01 Jun 97 18:23:06 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: New SMOTer & ramp Resent-Message-ID: <"gwy_R1.0.161.wQVap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7718 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris said (regarding the blue hole): >>This is interesting. I can feel it too, and very odd it feels.<< Indeed, it feels like the dice when you're about to make your point. Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 15:28:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 15:25:03 -0700 Date: 01 Jun 97 18:23:46 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: No steel strips yet - Barry's comput Resent-Message-ID: <"uayyX2.0.761.wQVap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7719 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Center Tap said: >>They will suddenly demagnetise, and convert the energy which they probably don't have into blasting the entire speaker enclosure into orbit.<< Kewl! And this won't necessarily be one of those "flashbacks" they promised? >>Chris (who is taking Sunday off, as you will have noticed)<< Explain this phrase "taking off", please. Terry (baby-sitting the grandchildren {1-1/2 and 7 yrs old.} on a Sunday afternoon) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 15:25:46 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 15:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:23:51 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: caduceus coils Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"imWT31.0._m6.2SVap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3547 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi everyone. I am working on a project that is not fe related, but involved the use of caduceus, or tensor coils. I've already tracked down what I can regarding them from Keelybet and Bill B's site, as well as what ever I could scrounge from "obscure" authors such as D. H. Childress, etc. What I am trying to track down is info relating to different winding configurations, fairly exact characteristics of these coils (ie inductance, etc) and any calculations, modified or otherwise, that anyone on the list may have gleaned from any research t hey may have done. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated! My sincerest thanks, in advance, to anyone who may provide any information! John X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 15:58:19 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 15:58:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: First test results of new flux switch generator... Cc: newman-l@emachine.com, gwatson@microtronics.com.au Date: Mon, 2 Jun 97 00:53:46 +0200 Resent-Message-ID: <"X55DH.0.Or.4wVap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3548 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id PAA05860 Hi, today I met with Dieter Bauer to test the design of Dieter Bauer´s new magnetic flux switch generator described at: http://www.overunity.de/theory.htm These are first time "quick and dirty" test results and will be hopefully improved by optimizing the hardware design: Rotation speed of magnetic flux distributor chamber (revolver): 1800 rpm Input power (DC power) into DC driving motor under no load (running all the losses, idle state): 4.5 Watts DC power Input power (DC power) into DC driving motor with load on the output-coils (load state): 6.27 Watts DC power Difference input power (load state minus idle state): 1.77 Watts DC Sum of Output power of 2 coils (at 1000 windings each) on the stationary magnet flux core: 1.34 Watts AC (very soft distorted sine wave at 120 Hz) (output coils had each 18 Ohm DC resistance at 0.3 mm copper wire diameter) External load resistor was 198 Ohm with a Peek Amplitude of about 17 Volts. (almost sine wave) Not knowing and not counting in the efficiency of the DC driving motor the incremental efficiency of our system we reached today with this design was just 75 %, no overunity yet. But counting in the driving motor efficiency the incremental efficiency would be probably at around 90 % I guess.. But I guess the big air gap of 4 x 7 mm plus 4 x 1 mm all in all is still a problem and also the coils must probably have more windings and also we will try a different iron core material. In the next few days, I will post a few pictures and more test results, showing this generator live in action... Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 16:33:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Nackles@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 19:30:35 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New SMOTer & ramp Resent-Message-ID: <"N8kSU2.0.pa2.jPWap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7725 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Responding to Chris To clarify, I have now also put a second Al track level, start point under the S curve on the SMOT ramp. Height of this level ramp = height of release point of ball. Ball rolls away, slowly. I think that what this does show - is that the ball has somehow acquired energy from the magnetic field configuration/interaction. And can remove this energy from the vicinity of the magnetic field configuration. It also gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that I can couple ramps (that in progress now with a 2nd ramp). Like being able to feel the blue hole. A point about the calculations that were flying around on vortex earlier. What about rotational energy of the ball. I have done some back of the envelope calculations (people, please check me on these!!): Steel ball dia 14mm, density 7.9 gm/cm2. Mass = 16.2gm (note change from my earlier mass - cheap scale that measures in increments of 12 gm!) Moment of inertia about axis through center = 3.2 gm.cm2 Ball rolls on lines separated by 13mm. Hence rolling radius = 0.26cm. Observed 16cms travel up ramp in 1.5 secs, hence _average_ vel V = 10cm/sec. Hence _av_ angular vel = 77rad/sec Hence rotational K.E. ~ 9500 gm.cm2/sec2 and ang. momentum ~ 250 gm.cm2/sec. For comparison, the linear kinetic energy is ~ 8000 gm.cm2/sec2 The point being that a significant amount of energy picked up by the ball (from somewhere) goes into rotational energy. Mike X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 16:40:26 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:40:10 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "free energy list" Subject: Armchair warrior= me Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:36:02 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"GBAH12.0.Ni7.OXWap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3553 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, As an unredeemable armchair warrior who has trouble getting the casing back on his computer (really!), I have been feeling progressively more inhibited about speaking on any topic on the list, much less the SMOT. Greg says: I have NO right to DEMAND that discussion of the SMOT device is limited to those who actually have built a device. I want to thank you for saying this, although I think personally you have no reason to apologize for telling people to "build it first". It's perfectly reasonable to ask those who are coming up with lengthy explanations on why you CAN'T do something to build the device and see what it will do. On the other hand the general undertone of disparagement on the list (and not from you Greg!) of those who are "theory heads" is not particularly helpful and has pretty much stopped me in my tracks. Perhaps it shouldn't, maybe I should bull ahead anyw ay, but I've never been much for telling people what they don't want to hear. Is there a need for a theoretical explanation of the SMOT at this time? I doubt it. There is probably more need for psychological adjustment on the part of those who are personally identified with various "laws" of physics which have never been anything more than generalizations from experience. Having said that I will say that my hunch is that curl, or spin, or rotation, lies at the heart of this situation. I would expect to see similar anomalies show up in mechanical gyroscopic systems that have no magnetic components. This has been demonstra ted in the experiments of E. B. Laithwaite. Joseph Newman is correct insofar as he has identified the gyroscopic nature of matter as crucial. I can't make any comment on his actual machines. I'm having trouble moving from this generalization about curl to the actual system at hand but I'm working on it. Greg, thanks again for your great openness and willingness to teach and learn. I think the psychological and spiritual achievement of cooperation among so many disparate individuals is at least as important as the actual technology involved. OBVIOUSLY the SMOT requires a modification of known physics, "goalpost movers" notwithstanding-- but even in the unlikely event that it is shown to be of no consequence (and how could that be done at this point?), I hope the spirit of this enterprise can live on in an other body. Fred . X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 16:40:46 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:40:31 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 18:43:47 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: sunbrite@pop.mymail.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Michael C Slivinski Subject: Re: SMOT AND (AntiG correlation and Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"h6e1U.0.Tl7.iXWap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3554 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hello ALL, Regarding msg below regarding bismuth and SMOT experiment. I was wondering when someone mentioned using the glass marble ball filled ferrous oxdid or iron powder, not sure but adding bismuth to it, I wonder if it would manifest any unusual anomolies like greater velocity up the ramp... or maybe it would just brin g it to a halt thoughts... mike s. At 01:09 PM 6/1/97 -1000, you wrote: >Fred - > > > Rick, did you do any experiments with > > measuring weight of such coils while excited > > by various kinds of signals? > >Yes, I thoughtlessly decided to run current through it from a battery while >the bismuth was suspended between magnets. A strong force did indeed appear >on the bismuth, jerking it out from between the magnets! My excitement >lasted oh, maybe a second or so. But perhaps this effect should be studied >more closely for possible useful applications. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > > Mike Slivinski sunbrite@mymail.net http://www.myhomepage.net/~sunbrite/ God helps those, that help themselves... so they may help others! MCS X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 16:50:37 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 09:17:33 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New SMOTer & ramp References: <970601193035_-1866263278@emout01.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"tgF9l.0.KV3.ygWap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3556 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Nackles@aol.com wrote: > > Responding to Chris > To clarify, I have now also put a second Al track level, start point > under the S curve on the SMOT ramp. Height of this level ramp = height of > release point of ball. Ball rolls away, slowly. You of now have a micro power Ou SMOT ramp! Congrats! > I think that what this does show - is that the ball has somehow > acquired energy from the magnetic field configuration/interaction. And can > remove this energy from the vicinity of the magnetic field configuration. > It also gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that I can couple ramps (that in > progress now with a 2nd ramp). Like being able to feel the blue hole. The blue hole on entry can be observed by sliding the magnets arrays up the ramp a bit and observing that about 20mm in front of the bottom end of the mag arrays, the ball will be very gently pushed AWAY from the arrays by the mag wall on the other side o f the blue hole. This effect is tiny, very small, but its there if you look for it. It helped me to believe that the QF sims were correct. The input rail needs to be very level to observe this. > A point about the calculations that were flying around on vortex > earlier. What about rotational energy of the ball. I have done some back of > the envelope calculations (people, please check me on these!!): > Steel ball dia 14mm, density 7.9 gm/cm2. > Mass = 16.2gm (note change from my earlier mass - cheap scale that > measures in increments of 12 gm!) > Moment of inertia about axis through center = 3.2 gm.cm2 > Ball rolls on lines separated by 13mm. Hence rolling radius = 0.26cm. > Observed 16cms travel up ramp in 1.5 secs, hence _average_ vel V = > 10cm/sec. > Hence _av_ angular vel = 77rad/sec > Hence rotational K.E. ~ 9500 gm.cm2/sec2 > and ang. momentum ~ 250 gm.cm2/sec. > For comparison, the linear kinetic energy is ~ 8000 gm.cm2/sec2 > > The point being that a significant amount of energy picked up by the ball > (from somewhere) goes into rotational energy. > > Mike Hi Mike, Welcome to the group. Looking forward to your linking results and increased rollaway speed. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 17:48:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:48:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "free energy list" Subject: test Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:48:39 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"1XoXj2.0.Su5.oXXap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3557 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com test X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 16:48:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:48:41 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net (Unverified) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 18:51:35 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Bedini Questions Resent-Message-ID: <"pN5UC2.0.3W.OfWap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3555 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >To: Free Energy List > >I am sending this letter to John Bedini, but I am also posting it >here because I hope that perhaps someone can venture an answer to >some of these questions. Also, I thought that the readers of this >list might find it interesting to read about my implementation of >the battery-based free energy circuit. This circuit was built and >tested, but it has been sitting on the shelf in a non-functional >state for many years now. > >If John Bedini is on the free energy list (freenrg-l,@eskimo.com), >then I invite him to respond via the list because I think that the >other members of the list would be intrested in his responce. > >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >To: John Bedini >From: Ralph Griffin ralph_griffin@compuserve.com > >I am an electrical engineer. I have spent all 15 years of my career >specializing in electrical power conversion. About 12 years ago, I >read a document published by Tesla Book Company entitled >"Experiments with a Kromrey and Brandt-Tesla Converter built by >John Bedini, with comments by Tom Bearden", by Eike Mueller. I >built a circuit based on the information I found in there, but I >did not succeed in producing free energy. I have some questions >about this circuit which I hope you can answer. > snip-- Dear Mr. Griffin: Thought you might enjoy reading the following information re Bedini: Bedini originally obtain "his" idea for the motor from conversations with Tom Bearden whom Bedini met via KABC during a series of interviews w/Bearden c. 1984. Bearden in turn learn ideas about such motors from two individuals whom he sent from Huntsvill e, AL to Lucedale, MS to meet with Joseph Newman and "pick his brain" in 1984. Joe has a number of letters from Bearden in 1984 congratulating him on his major discovery in electromagnetism. In recently going through my archives I discovered the following: The following is quoted from the January-February, 1986 issue of INFINITE ENERGY NEWSLETTER, Volume 1, Number 7, written by Gary Kring, NEF President, page 13: "...I received a xeroxed copy of an article in LET'S TALK MAGAZINE, a publication of radio station KABC in Los Angeles, send to me by NEF members, Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Hay. The article was written by Bill Jenkins, the host of the "Open Mind Show." A yea r or so ago, Jenkins had interview a theoretical physicist named Tom Bearden on his program. "We were discussing Nikola Tesla and T. Henry Moray," writes Jenkins, "and the very real prospect of today's science finally being able to achieve what those phy sicists had sone years ago: tap an energy source which was limitless and free." "John Bedini, a young designer of audio devices and speakers, was listening to the program. Impressed with Bearden's ideas, Bedini began tinkering with his own energy multiplication device. After long conversations with Bearden of Alabama on the phone a nd much testing, Bedini was sure he had a device that put out more energy than it took in. "Mr. Bedini had not wanted to patent the device but rather make it immediately available to the people of the world. When radio host, Bill Jenkins, got word of the device, he sent Dr. Patrick Flanagan, an electronics genius in his own right, to test it. "It worked," says Jenkins. "He had successfully developed a device that literally draws upon the free electrons which swirl around us, all the time, and harnessed them into doing work. "Seeking to understand more about the nature of this alleged 'free energy' device, I read the text of a speech by Thomas Bearden, titled, 'Toward a New Electromagnetics,' as it appeared in an edition of Energy Unlimited. Bearden states that 'the universe is filled with fantastic amounts of anenergy; ultimately, that is what the unviersal vacuum is.' Anenergy, Bearden defines as a flow or flux of virtual particles -- bringing to mind Joseph Newman's concept of gyroscopic particles." (end of quote from INFINITE ENERGY NEWSLETTER) __________________________________________________________________ The point of the above is that Bedini "learned" of how to construct such a device from Mr. Bearden. Mr. Bearden in turn "learned" how to build such a device from two gentlemen (friends of Bearden) whom he sent from Huntsville, Alabama to visit Joseph New man and see an working prototype in the early months of 1984 -- we have a photograph of their visit with Joseph Newman. These two gentleman reported back to Mr. Bearden as to how Joseph Newman's machine operated. It's easy to see why Bedini wasn't inter ested in patenting the invention: it wasn't his to patent in the first place. Joseph Newman had originally filed a patent application five years earlier (before 1984). Moreover, these "anerergy particles" --- gyroscopic particles --- specifically originate from the magnetic fields generated in the coil and magnet rotor of his Motor/Generators. Joseph Newman has described this mechanical process in great detail. In the final analysis, if one wants to understand the essence of this technology, I would sincerely recommend that one study the _innovator_ of this technology: Joseph Newman .... not J. Bedini. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space." --- MICHAEL FARADAY "Mr. Newman is a successful inventor with patented, marketed inventions. He is level-headed, sober, sane, and reliable. Further, he does have a very good Theory to explain what he has done. Many Doctors of Physics and Doctors of Electrical Engineering have already visited him, seen and tested the Motor, examined his Theory, and come away convinced that Joe Newman has what he says he has. "As one might expect, the patent commissioners' responses have been totally inappropriate. Joe Newman has yet to have a fair shake, and he certainly deserves a patent, simply on the credentials of the scientists and engineers who have already examined th e device and testified that it works. "Newman's machine is clean as a newborn baby and non-polluting. In production it will be simple, cheap, practical, and imminently affordable by the average person. "For that very reason, the entire massive energy cartel and control groups of the world are arrayed against him. They will see to it that Newman is destroyed unless powerful assistance and countermeasures are taken immediately. As you so well understand , Joe Newman doesn't have a TECHNICAL problem; he has a POLITICAL problem." --- THOMAS BEARDEN, from a letter, 1984 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 18:11:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 18:11:09 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:39:06 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: newman-l@emachine.com, neotech@xbn.shore.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Kit Offer and Web Agents Update 2nd June, 1997 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZYaM4.0.9L5.hsXap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3558 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Sorry for this rebroadcast. this will be the last one. If you have a web site and are interested in being a agent for the SMOT kits, read the bottom of the post. If you have already responded to previous posts, all the info you need or requested is at the bottom. I have altered a few items. Thats for the proof reading guys. Here are the updated SMOT Kit and SMOT Phases details : ******************** Price per Kit : $150 Australian Dollars via International Bank Cheque made payable to Greg Watson Consulting. This is approx : 115 US Dollars, 70 UK Pounds, 660 French Francs, 158 Canadian Dollars, 3975 Belgium Francs, 195 German Marks, 13200 Japanese Yen, 165 New Zealand Dollars, 875 Swedish Krona, 192000 Italian Lira 1350 Austrian Schillings 160 Swish Francs 906 Mexican Pecos Please enclose your email address so I can confirm your order and details of the Web Site where you saw this offer. ******************** You can ALSO send money directly to my bank account. My bank (ANZ) charges me $10 Aust to process the TT (Wire transfer) : If you wish to remit funds via TT please send $160 Australian Dollars to : Acount Name : Mr. and Mrs. GO Watson, Account Number : 015-035 5774-67879 Bank : ANZ, Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., 201 Victoria Square, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia, Australia. Advise request : Please advise Greg Watson on 8270 2737 of senders details. As banks sometimes get things wrong, please advise me via e-mail when you have sent a TT. When I receive it, I will confirm your order via return e-mail. Please enclose details of the Web Site where you saw this offer. ******************** Where to send for your SMOT Kit via Snail Mail : Greg Watson Consulting, 8 Brabham Grove, Aberfolye Park, 5159, South Australia, Australia. Contact Details : Home / Business / PC Fax .......... 61 8 8270 2737 E-Mail ............................ gwatson@microtronics.com.au Please enclose your email address so I can confirm your order and details of the Web Site where you saw this offer. ******************** What you will get for your $150(Bank Cheque)/$160(TT) Australian dollars : 4 x Heat formed perspex bases (Numbered, dated and signed my me), 4 x Linking ramps with "S" curve exits, 1 x Linking ramp with 90 deg exit (Rollaway / Rollaround use), 8 x Assembled Magnet Arrays, 4 x Steel Balls, 16 x Dress Making Pins, 1 x Instruction Manual, 1 x Frameable "Certificate of Authenticity", 1 x Photo of ME with the 4 linked SMOT ramps, The SMOT kits are "Exec Desk" Quality. One kit will produce 4 "Exec Desk" Toys. Each kit is hand tested my me. I will indicate the "factor default" adjustments for each ramp. ******************** Delivery : Via international postal air mail. ******************** My Personal Guarantee : Assuming that the ramps are placed on a flat level surface, I Greg Watson personal guarantee that : 1) The 4 SMOT ramps will work as individual ramps. A ball statring at rest will climb the ramp and drop out. start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 1) >>>>>>> This is Phase 1 of SMOT development and testing. 2) The 4 SMOT ramps will link and deliver a ball starting at rest to the end of the 4th linked ramp and drop out. start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 1) start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 2) start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, (Ramp 3) start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm. (Ramp 4) >>>>>>> This is Phase 2 of SMOT development and testing. If your SMOT kit can't do this, I will refund your money. ******************** Additional claims : Depending on your skill in adjusting the ramps and their linking, you should expect to achieve the following : 1) That the 4 linked ramps can be placed on a base board that will elevate the ramps at an angle and achieve a final ramp height at least twice the original height. The use of a board allows gradual increase of the ramp heights while you learn to power up the ramps. start at 0mm, climb to 15mm, drop to 3mm, (Ramp 1) start at 3mm, climb to 18mm, drop to 6mm, (Ramp 2) start at 6mm, climb to 21mm, drop to 9mm, (Ramp 3) start at 9mm, climb to 24mm, drop to 0mm. (Ramp 4) >>>>>> This is Phase 3 of SMOT development and testing. 2) That with the tilted linking achieved, the ball on exiting the final ramp will fall to the entry level and roll away from the ramp assemblies (staying at the entry level). (This is the first OU claim). >>>>>> This is Phase 4 of SMOT development and testing. 3) That with the rollaway achieved, a rollaround using plastic tubing will allow the ball to return to the start. (This is the second OU claim) >>>>>> This is Phase 5 of SMOT development and testing. 4) That with the rollaround achieved, the ball will re-enter the first ramp and repeat the process. (This is the third OU claim) >>>>>> This is Phase 6 and final stage of SMOT development and testing. ******************** I can't guarantee that YOU will achieve all of the above. To do so will depend on how good you get in adjusting the magnets. Many others will support my claim that getting the adjustments right can require hours of fiddling or minutes. It all depends on how much you understand the dynamics of the ramps. The more you play, the more you understand and the adjustments become second nature. ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WEB SITE OFFER <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Web sites who WISH to display this SMOT Kit offer AND qualify to receive FREE SMOT Kits, the details are as follows : When I receive orders, I will enquire of the purchaser via which Web site they became aware of the SMOT. For every 5 orders I receive via your Web site, I will sent you a FREE Smot kit. This sort of makes you my agent on a 20% commission. You are able to onsell the SMOT kits if you so wish. If you have already purchased a SMOT kit for yourself, I will refund your money. I will have photos of the finished SMOT kits available with-in a week. Now you wish to promote the SMOT kits is up to you, the better job you do, the more FREE SMOT kits you will receive. Other than my offer of 1 FREE SMOT kit per 5 orders I receive from your web site, there is NO other agreements between us. You are a FREE agent. Do with the FREE SMOT kits as you will. They are yours, NO strings attached. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Best Regards, Good Smoting to all, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 10:59:20 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 10:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: ben@clubelite.com (Ben Tammetta) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 01:53:05 +0000 Subject: Online project status [FREE Energy Quest (webpage) ] Reply-to: tammetta@mindspring.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Priority: normal References: <339157D2.6128F85B@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"XqLoo.0.Ui3.6XRap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3538 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ok, here it is, This will revolutionize the way we collaborate and share information. http://www.clubelite.com/fe/ Online FREE Energy Device Status ( Using WebTrack) Now everyone can post and update information on their own FREE Energy Device or SMOT project so everyone can see. I spent all my morning (5 hours) writting this program instead of closing the loop.... So Everyone better try it out and make use of it. :) Let me know if you find any bugs/errors, have suggestions, or comments Thanks, Ben ben@clubelite.com http://www.clubelite.com/fe/ ###################### # Ben Tammetta # # ben@clubelite.com # ###################### X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 13:44:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:41:35 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date : Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:40:14 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"pQDUY3.0.8o5.z_oap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7768 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Frank - I think we need to be very careful, these things are very interesting and even compelling, but until we've got the thing spinning for hours on our workbenches, we might not be any closer than anyone else ever was. They've never worked before, AFAIK. The sawtooth arrangement I described only worked under somewhat special conditions which I've described to Michael, and may not really be valid for a long ramp with a non-converging field. We might really need that convergence, as well as Greg's blue hole s for regauging to achieve real OU. I'm still going to build a Kosher style Watson SMOT before I get too carried away here. It is fun though, huh? More fun than kitchen remodeling, I bet! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 13:47:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:41:54 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:40:31 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"V2bvg2.0.ep5.G0pap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7769 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael - > Interesting design! I'll try it. What > was the spacing betwn the magnets and the > angle you found that worked? Ball, magnet > and ramp size? Here's some detail. I was playing around with a pair of larger magnets and a special low friction rail. The rail here is important, as I was not able this morning do get a good replication of my own results using the coarser aluminum channel I have been using for the regular SMOTs. But I did see this work last night. It's a small thin brass rail with very sharp rolling edges. Ball was about 8mm. I had just polished the rail very smooth before playing with it. I was bouncing the ball back and forth between magnetic walls as I said in the other post. But since the rolling friction was now so low, I could place the magnets much further away from the rail and still the ball would react well. I noticed that as I wi dened the spacing between the two magnets on either side of the rail, the limit to to balls range of travel began to extend well out beyond a line marking the ends of the magnets. You see this briefly with magnets close in on your ramps when a ball tries to overshoot a ramp you've got too tight, and the ball lunges out and snaps back behind the wall. But here it was lazy and slow and it began to move surprisingly far beyond the usual limit. This made me think "link". There was quite a gap in the linear ar rangement of the first attempt. The gap between two adjacent magnets was probably about an inch, maybe a bit less. The ball linked through the first try with this half-array setup. I tried it with 4 magnets (2 pair opposed NS as usual) and it worked again . Tilted the ramp up slightly, and it still worked. I even thought I saw a two magnet rollaway on a horizontal run, but that's pretty weak - I was definitely in flea-flick territory, and the slightest finger momentum left on the ball might have carried it through such a delicate set of forces. That's my worry: when you go to low friction and small forces, noise and error begin to loom large. I'm not completely convinced this ramp arrangement really works yet. Hamdi says his similar arrangement does work. That's a positive note, but I still think this all needs to be checked with a long run of carefully arranged magnets as Hami suggests. As for it being the same as the Hartman ramp Terry, no - the Hartman ramp has a built in convergence in the field. This design *supposedly* has no convergence, so you don't run out of ramp with magnets converging to a point. I really can't understand how this can work. I did see it, but it could be error where I really had some slight convergence of field with my magnets that I didn't notice. Maybe Greg's design does work because of the repeated re-gauging from the frequent b lue hole drops. Maybe if you don't hit several of those along your circuit, you don't get OU. Needs work, IMHO. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 19:40:00 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 19:39:44 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 12:07:25 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com, mwm@aa.net Subject: Re: Last AND Least? References: <199706012311.SAA27431@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"vApSF3.0.Zu1.j9Zap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3559 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > At 07:10 AM 6/2/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: > > >Hi Scott, > > > >I thought your son was going to do the building? > > Jascha is a junior in college studying mechanical engineering and he's > becoming quite a capable fabricator. He did build the ramps and then I > studied the thing this weekend and tried to make some objective > determinations of its performance. > > I have considered going to a smaller ball, which would fit my magnets better > but, as I said before, the larger ball works better than the smaller > one...at least in the few trials I've done. They do work better, up to a point. > I need to get the magnet arrays tied down more securely and fixed so they > can be adjusted very finely. Thats important. I find adjustments in 0.5mm increments OK. > Greg, I am still in a state of disbelief concerning your original > close-the-loop claim. Tell me again what your closed-loop device does, please. > > Scott Little HI Scott, The RMOD Mark I drives a rotation 4mm steel shaft. The SMOT kits, will, depending on your adjustment skills (and these build quickly) : 1) Do a ball rollaway on the same level as the input rail. Ou for you or not? 2) Do a ball rollaround of 180 deg to back to the same distance. A upside down "J" return to the same distance as the start. Ou yet? 3) Do a ball rollaround of 2 x 180 to back to the entry of the 4 linked ramps 1 x upside down "J", 1 x "U". Some claim to have done this with just 2 ramps. This normally requires the 4 ramps to be placed on a board and the far end of the board elevated some what to gain additional KE. Still not Ou? 4) Do a loop through the whole system. OK, it must be Ou now, right? Best Regards, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 13:55:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:52:08 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:50:51 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"Iwjhd.0.he6.s9pap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7770 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Terry - > Isn't this similar to the original > Hartman patented geometry? Similar, but the Hartman rig has convergence along the array. This sawtooth stuff doesn't. I've seen these sawtooth arrays in patents though. Can't remember which ones, I'm sure it's among the ones we've discussed here. Thing is, I know I've seen it before. And I still have doubts about it really being valid over long runs. Maybe it only works with the magnets further away from the rails, and the close in versions have the magnetic walls too steep. That's what I saw this morning when I tried it with aluminum rails requiring closer magnets to propel the ball. No linking. Maybe a steel back-rail would help with this, I haven't tried that yet. Blue holes may be the source of the magic. Continuous linking is definitely necessary so the ball or rotor or whatever never gets caught behind a wall. Can you have continuous linking without eventual array convergence or blue hole drop-through regauging? I think that's what it comes down to. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 19:42:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 19:41:34 -0700 From: "Science wig. sig." Subject: Magnet Size To: freenrg-L@eskimo.com (science) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"OYjUR.0.G22.PBZap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3560 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Will the large Radio Shack magnets work? Say, 5 of them? Andrew -- +-----Andrew Cantino---------xx053@seorf.ohiou.edu---------------------+ | Free Stuff page: http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx053/hide/free.html | | Science page: http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx053/ | +----------------------------------- -----------------------------------+ | | | "Nothing Unreal Exists" - Kir-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics | | ** Information is power, use it wisely. ** | | ** No matter where you go, there you are. ** | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 14:08:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:05:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:03:02 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Sorry Hamdi Resent-Message-ID: <"8P85H1.0.QN4.yLpap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7772 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi - Sorry about mispelling your name. It's not one I'm used to seeing in print - won't happen again (unless it's a typo I missed). Have you aligned the sawtooth array against a straightedge so you know there's no convergence in the array and it still works? The only way I've been able to get it to work is with some separation between the adjacent magnets, and even then I'm not absolu tely sure of what I'm seeing. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 18:27:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:27:24 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:11:10 -1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"EdxfW2.0.UK6.wBtap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3602 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Michael - It was me posting about Pepto Bismol. Use the chewable tablets - you can see the diamagnetism with strong magnets. It might work to grind up a tablet and mix with ferrous material inside a ball. I don't know what that would do, but it could be something t o try anyway. Never know 'till we know, do we? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 21:01:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:00:52 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Takahashi & theory of SMOT Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:00:25 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"CfTaZ3.0.YS6.pLaap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3561 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Yes, this is what I was thinking, the principle seems very similar. What is the "credibility level" of the Takahashi motor? I went to the Denver INE conference two years ago mostly to see the Takahashi scooter but it was claimed that it had been sent to the wrong location or otherwise waylaid. I have examined the Takahash i supercapacitor patent and he certainly SEEMS like he knows what he is talking about. There is a page at www.overunity.de about the magnetic wankel motor which seems to be the same thing if people want to look at it. Jeff Fink says: if those interested in SMOT would look at page 51 in IE vol 1 no. 5,6 you will see that Takahashi's motor seems to run on the same principle (whatever that is). Whereas Watson uses gravity to slip the ball out the side of the field, Takahashi uses a mome ntary electromagnetic pulse to bridge the field. Any comments? I am looking at T. Beardens explanation of this motor at http://www.virtualtimes.com/writers/bearden/mageng/absract.htm but I don't understand it well enough to comment on it. I agree with Hamdi Ucar that symmetry breaking has something to do with it. In nonreciprocal systems (energy-asymmetric systems where the inputs and outputs cannot be reversed), it has been proven that either a magnetic field or a gyroscopic process must be present (and of course at a basic level these are the same). Two quotes will illustrate why I am interested in these nonreciprocal systems (magnets and gyroscopes): "If the reciprocity conditions are not satisfied, the mathematical description will imply sources and/or sinks of energy in the coupling field that can lead to nonphysical results" --Electromechanical Dynamics (Woodson) "The theorem of reciprocity can be simply stated for a four-pole by stating the condition Z(12) = Z(21) The theorem of reciprocity has, in the past, been considered so universally valid that present-day textbooks still make the statement that if the condition stated ... is valid, the four-pole is passive, and if the condition does not hold for a particular network, the network must of necessity be an active network. Actually, the theorem of reciprocity is as universally valid in mechanical, acoustical, or optical systems as it is in electrical s ystems, but it is known that passive systems can be built in all of these fields which violate the theorem of reciprocity. These systems are so unique, though, that they have obtained special attention in the technical literature for over fifty years. T hus it has been known for some time that a mechanical system which contains a gyroscopic coupler does not obey the theorem of reciprocity, and as early as the turn of the century, scientists were worried about the apparent lack of reciprocity which arose in the operation of certain electromechanical transducers."-- The Elements Of Nonreciprocal Microwave Devices, Hogan, Proc. IRE, June 1956, p.1346 "Much has been writtenabout the conditions under which it might be possible to build an antireciprocal element such as the gyrator. Onsager has recently shown that in order for a completely electrical passive system to violate reciprocity, a nochanging m agnetic field must be present."-- ibid, p.1348 The thing that all nonreciprocal systems have in common is curl, spin, or rotation. Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 21:12:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Takahashi, not Johnson Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:11:48 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"VyaAJ.0.bV6.JWaap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3562 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Butch and all, Butch says, The thing that gets me about the Takahashi motor is, it was featured in popular science in 1980 (17 years ago) and To my knowledge it still has not be proven to be overunity. If I build a machine that is overunity, I hope in seventeen years I can show that it very simply puts out more energy than it takes to run it! I WOULD SIMPLY PUT IT ON DISPLAY, RUNNING FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE AND TEST! The motor featured in Pop Sci was the Johnson permanent magnet motor, not the Takahashi motor. As best as I can tell from the various garbled stories floating around about the Johnson motor, a LINEAR model was demonstrated at the patent office before the patent was approved, but a ROTARY model was never built. I don't think in 17 years we'll be sitting around wondering, is this thing overunity or not? God help us if we are. Once again, if I build an overunity device I'll prove it if I half to stuff it down everybody's throat while there kicking, and screaming! But the best test of overunity will be when you call the power company and say, come get your damm meter and stick it where the sun don't shine! I like your style Butch :-) Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 21:54:00 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:54:18 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 00:52:58 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Thanks, Fred Resent-Message-ID: <"StBqw.0.VX.t7bap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3563 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thanks, Fred Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 18:29:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:27:36 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:11:08 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re:Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"GcynG3.0.lN6.6Ctap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7787 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace - > The inventor said the key was getting the > angles of all the magnets right. That may be an important clue to the sawtooth array. I couldn't get it to work up close to the rail. It might link across two or three magnets, then stick. Adjustments up close where the power is greater and field geometry is tighter are just too critical . But when I had it at low power with a very low friction rail and the magnets far away, adjustment was not critical and it worked easily. Looser field geometry. Maybe it really does work, but you have to compromise power for adjustment lattitude. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 22:11:02 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:10:35 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 01:09:59 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Second ball Resent-Message-ID: <"hlZT2.0.n21.ANbap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3565 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, (Just for fun) If there was a practical way, (which there isn't) could the partial energy from a second ball, half way up the ramp, be used to help the first ball out? Butch X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 22:58:09 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:56:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: Re: Takahashi, not Johnson Resent-Message-ID: <"vssE12.0.EQ2.a3cap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3567 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred wrote: > >The motor featured in Pop Sci was the Johnson permanent magnet motor, not >the Takahashi motor. As best as I can tell from the various garbled >stories floating around about the Johnson motor, a LINEAR model was >demonstrated at the patent office before the patent was approved, but a >ROTARY model was never built. > At the top of "http://www.overunity.de/wankel.htm" it says: This is the news we learned to know via Popular Science magazine from June 1979 about the magnetic wankelmotor. It is not the Takahashi motor ! And in the article it says it was designed by, ...Kure Tekko, a Japanese engineering firm... In my opinion the Magnetic Wankel was yet another design lost in history ( except maybe in Japan ). Takahashi motor on the other hand I believe came on the scene fairly recently ( not 17 years ago ). I can't say the Fred is wrong about it being the "Johnson permanent magnet motor" because I haven't seen that design, it may be the same as Kure Tekko's design. From what I've seen about the Takahashi motor ( which did not include a design ), I think it i s different from Kure Tekko's design but could exploit the same principle. A few months ago I built a Magnetic Wankel motor. It ran. I still think that it could be over-unity but the one I built only had the power of a dozen fleas so it barely would spin up the DC motor I was going to use for a generator. I think I would need to build a larger one with a rare earth magnet on the rotor side and large ceramics around it like the article shows. I used some small ceramics. Last week I tore it apart to play with SMOT designs. Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /********************************************************/ /* I don't think that energy is conserved, but it */ /* doesn't matter if useful over-unity operation works! */ /********************************************************/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 23:16:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 01:11:31 -0500 (CDT) From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini Questions Reply-To: w9sz@prairienet.org Resent-Message-ID: <"qVf_m.0.Zs2.DLcap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3568 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > > >Dear Mr. Griffin: > >Thought you might enjoy reading the following information re Bedini: > >Bedini originally obtain "his" idea for the motor from conversations with >Tom Bearden whom Bedini met via KABC during a series of interviews >w/Bearden c. 1984. Bearden in turn learn ideas about such motors from two >individuals whom he sent from Huntsville, AL to Lucedale, MS to meet with >Joseph Newman and "pick his brain" in 1984. Joe has a number of letters >from Bearden in 1984 congratulating him on his major discovery in >electromagnetism. > I have mentioned this before. Somehow it doesn't sink in. The device in question has no motors in it, nor does it have any magnets. It is strictly a battery-switching device. > >"Seeking to understand more about the nature of this alleged 'free energy' >device, I read the text of a speech by Thomas Bearden, titled, 'Toward a >New Electromagnetics,' as it appeared in an edition of Energy Unlimited. >Bearden states that 'the universe is filled with fantastic amounts of >anenergy; ultimately, that is what the unviersal vacuum is.' Anenergy, >Bearden defines as a flow or flux of virtual particles -- bringing to mind >Joseph Newman's concept of gyroscopic particles." (end of quote from >INFINITE ENERGY NEWSLETTER) > >__________________________________________________________________ > >The point of the above is that Bedini "learned" of how to construct such a >device from Mr. Bearden. Mr. Bearden in turn "learned" how to build such a >device from two gentlemen (friends of Bearden) whom he sent from >Huntsville, Alabama to visit Joseph Newman and see an working prototype in >the early months of 1984 -- we have a photograph of their visit with Joseph >Newman. These two gentleman reported back to Mr. Bearden as to how Joseph >Newman's machine operated. It's easy to see why Bedini wasn't interested >in patenting the invention: it wasn't his to patent in the first place. >Joseph Newman had originally filed a patent application five years earlier >(before 1984). > >Moreover, these "anerergy particles" --- gyroscopic particles --- >specifically originate from the magnetic fields generated in the coil and >magnet rotor of his Motor/Generators. Joseph Newman has described this >mechanical process in great detail. > >In the final analysis, if one wants to understand the essence of this >technology, I would sincerely recommend that one study the _innovator_ of >this technology: Joseph Newman .... not J. Bedini. > >Best regards, > >Evan Soule' >Director of Information >NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS >josephnewman@earthlink.net Please read Bearden's papers in detail. The anenergy he describes is not gyroscopic but rather random in nature ... he credits the theory in part to Timothy Boyer and Hal Puthoff, and in part to Ilya Prigogine (Nobel-prize winner for his work in non-equil ibrium statistical mechanics). The basic particles are random. Gyroscopic particles are simply larger accumulations of this more fundamental randomity. Bearden's paper, "Toward A New Electromagnetics Part IV - Vectors And Mechanisms Clarified" goes into this theory in much more detail. It also explains what is supposed to happen with the Brandt-Tesla Switch. Zack -- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 00:53:41 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 00:53:32 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Cc: "Stefan Hartmann" Subject: RE: Takahashi, not Johnson Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 00:49:21 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"fYuSs3.0.am5.xldap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3570 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Folks, Well this is a tempest in a teapot but on looking at http://www.overunity.de/wankel.htm on the magnetic Wankel engine what I see are two different devices described as the same thing. I am ALMOST certain that the machine shown in the photo on the righ t is the Johnson magnetic motor described in an article from a 1980 issue of Pop Sci. (This is the one that didn't work). I seem to remember reading a reprint of the article at some point. The device on the left hand side of the page doesn't really seem to match the one on the right. Does anyone remember the Johnson article...? There was a fair amount of hoopla about this motor when it came out. Scott Becker says, "This is the news we learned to know via Popular Science magazine from June 1979 about the magnetic wankelmotor. It is not the Takahashi motor ! And in the article it says it was designed by, ...Kure Tekko, a Japanese engineering firm..." Maybe Stefan Hartmann can clarify this for us. Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 02:20:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 02:20:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 02:20:24 -0700 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: AntiG correlation and Bismuth Resent-Message-ID: <"Uao2Q.0.DA7.R1fap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3571 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I repeated the experiments. The diamagnetic repulsion effect was eliminated. The similarity to SMOT is a piece of matter loosing weight while on the "neutral line" between two permanent magnets. The results were positive albeit very subtle. At 01:23 PM 6/1/97 -1000, you wrote: >Fred - > > > A while back there was some discussion of > > an experiment that I purportedly did with a > > thin sheet of Bi between two magnets. I was > > not the one who proposed this experiment or > > discussed it, although I have seen it referred > > to in the book "Manual Of Free-Energy > > Devices, V. 2" by Don Kelly. > >Sorry, I thought it was you who had done the experimets. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 04:32:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 04:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 13:49:51 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re:Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"NLlTL1.0.gb1.xxgap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7745 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick, You found it!, In my Friday posting "My magnets sizes are same as Naudin's" I wrote: "By the[way] I found an other style to stack the magnets and it show very interesting effect on accelerating the ball. I will not to describe it at this moment for not disturbing the concentration of the team." This is it. I send the idea to Greg yesterday for he try himself. This is the part of this letter: My special stacking scheme (I am not using it) like this: N //////// S ====o===== S \\\\\\\\ N blocks are placed in parallel. zoom in: / \ / \ _______________ \ \ | S | \ \ |_______N______| \ \ ________________ ___ \ \ | S | / / \ \ |_______N_______| / / ___ \ \ ________________ /N S/ / / \ \ | S | / / / / ___ \ \ |_______N_______| / / /N S/ / / \ \ . /___/ / / / / \ \ . / / /N S/ \ \ . /___/ / / . \. . . \ / / . /___/ . (there is no space between adjacent magnets) Field generated is very asymmetric along the axis and carry the ball always in one direction (as the SMOT) But the effect is stronger and continue as you elongated the stacks. I have insufficient magnet quantity for a 40-50 cm long arrays to test the effe ct for OU anomaly. If you don't tried this before please do it and I ensure you that you will be impressed!. If the pull is continuous along the path it is possible to arrange magnets in circle and close the loop. I will name it "physics bugs" like the bugly programs hangs on infinte loops. Practical method to stack magnets this way is squeezing them diagonally in a U profiles. -------------< end of letter >------------ I am using 10x25x40 magnets. Yes, its work but as I stated in the letter I have not egough magmet to test it. Waiting positive results Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 04:00:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 03:58:07 -0700 Date: 02 Jun 97 06:56:34 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: New SMOTer & ramp Resent-Message-ID: <"0dtl3.0.AA2.-Sgap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7742 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mike, > To clarify, I have now also put a second Al track level, start > point under the S curve on the SMOT ramp. Height of this level > ramp = height of release point of ball. Ball rolls away, slowly. > I think that what this does show - is that the ball has > somehow acquired energy from the magnetic field > configuration/interaction. And can remove this energy from the > vicinity of the magnetic field configuration. It also gives > me a warm fuzzy feeling that I can couple ramps (that in progress > now with a 2nd ramp). Like being able to feel the blue hole. OK. I have to agree that this at least has the *smell* of OU. And your point about the rotational energy of the ball is relevant - I had forgotten that part. So ... the ball does mechanical work against friction, it absorbs eddy currents, it returns to its original height and rolls away from the magnetic field - to a higher magnetic potential. Gulp. Terry asks what "taking a day off" means. Just having a non-working day, that's all. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 03:59:21 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 03:58:56 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 20:26:40 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Closing, YES its finally here Resent-Message-ID: <"juM-61.0.fB2.jTgap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3572 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, The attached GIF should say it all. I know there will be a thousand questions, but the basic one is, YES it works. Barry and others. Notice the ball is not always in the ramps field. The field 300mm away is quite small amd the ball is turning all the time due to how it rolls / half slides around the 300mm turns. In my setup, it takes about 1.5 to 2mm of differential height to get a good roll around. Experiment, discuss, build or just talk theory, but here it is. Best Regards, Greg Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\CLOSE-C-.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 04:21:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 04:21:16 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 20:49:21 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Last AND Least? References: <199706011545.KAA05730@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"2heq13.0.Wn2.hogap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3574 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > At 09:31 PM 6/1/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: > > >> 1. magnet dims: 7.5mm hi, 13mm long, 4mm thick > > 9.7mm hi, 13mm long, 4mm thick > > OUr magnets vary a bit from 7.5mm to nearly 8mm high. Greg, do you think > this might be a disabling change? Don't know, haven't tried such a large differential magnet height to ball diameter. > >> 5. alignment: ball center level with magnet center > > ball 1.5mm below magnet centre. > > I have experimented with shimming up the magnets briefly...didn't see any > significant change except that it seemed more likely to snap the ball over > to one of the magnets at the end of the ramp. That means that the ball is NOT on the magnetic centre line. This will cause increased side frictional losses. Probably also explains why you don't see a improvement when you lift the magnets above the ball's centre line. > > 6. Ramp: ? > > 90mm long, with polished rails. (Very little noise) > > The slanted part of our ramp is 90mm and the rails are nicely polished. We > also have a 20mm long level part at the foot of the ramp with a smooth bend > made as you suggested with a hacksaw cut. > > > 7. Back: ? > > 3x10x104mm Steel > > Ours are 3.5x8x106mm right now...they are 2mm longer than the magnets. > > > >> Greg, do you have to believe this thing will work before it does?.... > > >Once you get the ramp working, its very solid. > > One disadvantage we in the States have is a lack of Blu-Tak! My meager > supply was donated by Chris Tinsley some time ago. There is a shoddy > facsimile here called Handi-Tak that is yellow in color and very soft. It > is to Blu-Tak as mud is to concrete. Anyone in the Blu-Tak countries care > to trade for a couple of packs?...I can send Duct tape, Velcro, etc. Blu-Tak rules! > Scott Little Hi Scott, Sorry for the delay in answering, but my creditors wanted paid. Had to do some real work. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 05:00:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 05:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:10:02 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT rollaway specs Resent-Message-ID: <"n7hmc1.0.XF2.kNhap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3576 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I find that to achieve a rollaway with my SMOT ramp design, I need a lift of around 18mm or about 1.5 ball diameters. You don't need to lift 4 ramps to do this. I can get around 16 with one ramp or 20mm with two. I believe others will be able to get the rollaround track to work with one ramp. If you can get a rollaway 1.5 to 2mm above the entry level on a single ramp then the rollaround design will work for you. So our goal is now : 1) Achieve a level rollaway 2mm above the entry height. 2) Build the "N" gauge rollaround setup and get a loop. Go for it. Best Results, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 23:21:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:19:58 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:18:46 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??! Resent-Message-ID: <"1RDc6.0.CD3.DUxap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7796 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi - > Do you mean such a configuration? > > //////// > ============= > |||||||| > No. > My configuration like this > > //////////// > ============== > \\\\\\\\\\\\ Yes. By straightedge, I just meant a reference line or barrier along the magnets to make sure they were all in a good line, without having them come nearer the ball track at one end, or vary their tilted angle over the length of the track. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 23:49:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: <970531213722_100433.1541_BHG66-2@CompuS erve.COM> (message from Chris Tinsley on 31 May 97 17:37:23 EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:46:06 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Smot thoughts Resent-Message-ID: <"UrAg4.0.lx2.Yuxap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7801 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Robert - > So I see Greg's device (and it's predecessors) as consistant with > current physics... Maybe so. But perhaps we need a new term for Watts of energy which are drawn from the void. Something futuristic and Jetson-like. Watts...Jetsons ... How about: the "Watson"? The least we could do is embarrass him a bit since he's responsible for starting this whole SMOT mess. ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 06:08:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 06:08:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:11:34 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: sunbrite@pop.mymail.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Michael C Slivinski Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"-d9Yx3.0.U-5.sMiap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3578 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com At 07:10 PM 6/1/97 -1000, you wrote: >Mike - > > > Hello ALL, Regarding msg below regarding > > bismuth and SMOT experiment. I was > > wondering when someone mentioned using > > the glass marble ball filled ferrous oxdid or > > iron powder, not sure but adding bismuth to > > it, I wonder if it would manifest any unusual > > anomolies like greater velocity up the > > ramp... > >Epitaxy has the powder filled glass spheres, I have some powdered bismuth. >I offered to send Epitaxy some, but he didn't respond. Might not have seen >it, or thought I was joking. I might try it myself, with an epoxy molded >ball with powder loaded in when I get time. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > Hello All, Rick, On this list or another, I saw someone mentioning using pepto bismol, and said that it contains a lot of bismuth (don't know at all) if I had a bottle I would check out the amount. I would wonder if that could also be mixed with the powder, don't know how well it would stay mixed or separate. thoughts... Mike Slivinski sunbrite@mymail.net http://www.myhomepage.net/~sunbrite/ God helps those, that help themselves... so they may help others! MCS X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 04:18:55 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 04:19:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: johnnyfg@mail.algonet.se (Unverified) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 13:20:22 To: freenrg-L@eskimo.com From: Johnny Feelgood Subject: Re: ICQList Resent-Message-ID: <"jxHT71.0.DO1.qmgap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3573 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com At 01.00 1997-05-28 +0200, you wrote: >JNaudin509@aol.com wrote: >> << I'm on the ICQ List. To develop the list, select only the address list >> and then reply and add yours. > Johnny Feelgood #1443903 (Email=johnnyfg@algonet.se) exit --- I vote for a flat society - like internet! mailto:JohnnyFG@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~johnnyfg/index.htm X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 06:33:13 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 06:33:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Charlie Hodgson" Date: Mon, 02 Jun 97 09:25:30 -0400 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: TEETER TOTTER Resent-Message-ID: <"4sutr.0.y-4.Akiap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3580 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com In <1.5.4.16.19970531090908.3c8743b2@pop.mymail.net>, on 05/31/97 at 09:12 AM, Michael C Slivinski said: >Hello All, >if the first phase assembly/unit was placed so the whole assembly was >evenly balanced on a pivot (like childrens teeter toter)( two kids on a Sounds like a good idea.... I had been thinking of somthing like the s - ramp - but employing mupltiple 'humps' They have this exhibit at a place called Sci-Trek, here in Atlanta, with two ramps, equal height and horizontal length, and you roll balls down them. The humped ramp accellerates *much* faster Charlie -- CCITT- Can't Conceive Intelligent Thoughts Today. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 06:16:14 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 06:15:34 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:18:37 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Bedini Questions Resent-Message-ID: <"FkchM.0.BF6.rTiap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3579 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >> >>Thought you might enjoy reading the following information re Bedini: >> >>Bedini originally obtain "his" idea for the motor from conversations with >>Tom Bearden whom Bedini met via KABC during a series of interviews >>w/Bearden c. 1984. Bearden in turn learn ideas about such motors from two >>individuals whom he sent from Huntsville, AL to Lucedale, MS to meet with >>Joseph Newman and "pick his brain" in 1984. Joe has a number of letters >>from Bearden in 1984 congratulating him on his major discovery in >>electromagnetism. >> >I have mentioned this before. Somehow it doesn't sink in. > >The device in question has no motors in it, nor does it have any magnets. >It is strictly a battery-switching device. To quote the following re John Bedini: "The free energy system of John Bedini, first introduced in 1984, consists of moderately complex electronic circuit USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D.C. MOTOR to produce sufficient electrical power to drive a loag while the battery (source) is continually being recharged." [emphasis added] >>"Seeking to understand more about the nature of this alleged 'free energy' >>device, I read the text of a speech by Thomas Bearden, titled, 'Toward a >>New Electromagnetics,' as it appeared in an edition of Energy Unlimited. >>Bearden states that 'the universe is filled with fantastic amounts of >>anenergy; ultimately, that is what the unviersal vacuum is.' Anenergy, >>Bearden defines as a flow or flux of virtual particles -- bringing to mind >>Joseph Newman's concept of gyroscopic particles." (end of quote from >>INFINITE ENERGY NEWSLETTER) >> >>__________________________________________________________________ >> >>The point of the above is that Bedini "learned" of how to construct such a >>device from Mr. Bearden. Mr. Bearden in turn "learned" how to build such a >>device from two gentlemen (friends of Bearden) whom he sent from >>Huntsville, Alabama to visit Joseph Newman and see an working prototype in >>the early months of 1984 -- we have a photograph of their visit with Joseph >>Newman. These two gentleman reported back to Mr. Bearden as to how Joseph >>Newman's machine operated. It's easy to see why Bedini wasn't interested >>in patenting the invention: it wasn't his to patent in the first place. >>Joseph Newman had originally filed a patent application five years earlier >>(before 1984). >> >>Moreover, these "anerergy particles" --- gyroscopic particles --- >>specifically originate from the magnetic fields generated in the coil and >>magnet rotor of his Motor/Generators. Joseph Newman has described this >>mechanical process in great detail. >> >>In the final analysis, if one wants to understand the essence of this >>technology, I would sincerely recommend that one study the _innovator_ of >>this technology: Joseph Newman .... not J. Bedini. >> snip-- > >Please read Bearden's papers in detail. The anenergy he describes is not >gyroscopic but rather random in nature ... he credits the theory in part to >Timothy Boyer and Hal Puthoff, and in part to Ilya Prigogine >(Nobel-prize winner for his work in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics). >The basic particles are random. Gyroscopic particles are simply larger >accumulations of this more fundamental randomity. I am not claiming that Bearden claims such "anenergy particles" are gyroscopic. What I am stating is that Joseph Newman has stated that the "anenergy particles" spoken of by Bearden are actually "gyroscopic particles." As Joseph Newman describes, the "r andom" flow of such gyroscopic particles represents "heat." snip--> >Zack > Best regards, Evan Soule' josephnewman@earthlink.net X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 07:47:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:47:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Bmd2323@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:45:40 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: diagrams/specs Resent-Message-ID: <"0xcT22.0.t4.opjap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3582 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All! I don't know of any place on-line where the Tesla patent can be found, but I do know that 73 Magazine published a simplified drawing of one a couple of months ago. It would be easy for someone to scan if they had a copy. I don't, but am not sure I can f ind mine and I don't have access to a scanner. Bmd2323@aol.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 08:07:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:58:46 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:58:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"crfN_3.0.922.b-jap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7753 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Rick, Interesting design! I'll try it. What was the spacing betwn the magnets and the angle you found that worked? Ball, magnet and ramp size? Thanks in advance, Michael X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 17:36:07 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:05:39 +0200 From: Ronald de Mol Organization: World Online To: Freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Web Page Update. Resent-Message-ID: <"EQw-y1.0.xN5.qRsap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3599 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Web Page Update At http://home.worldonline.nl/~catware P.S.: It's not the web page of GREG self, "Ronald's Greg watson's SMOT project page" sounds bad, so read it as something like: Greg Watson's SMOT, Project page -- Ronald. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 17:37:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:36:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:05:39 +0200 From: Ronald de Mol Organization: World Online To: Freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Web Page Update. Resent-Message-ID: <"EQw-y1.0.lN5.pRsap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7783 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Web Page Update At http://home.worldonline.nl/~catware P.S.: It's not the web page of GREG self, "Ronald's Greg watson's SMOT project page" sounds bad, so read it as something like: Greg Watson's SMOT, Project page -- Ronald. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 09:00:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:56:55 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 11:57:36 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: Resent-Message-ID: <"1E08M.0.9W5.5rkap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7755 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Gnorts - > (snip) Look down at the shape made by 4 linked Watson ramps: > > / \ > / \ > / \ > / \ > > Ok, now the question might occur, can good linking be achieved on a single > horizontal section of rail, or must one section rise above the other to get > linking? An answer came quickly from four of the large Radio Shack > rectangular magnets, one SMOT ball and a length of horizontal track: Yes. Hey Rick, and others - get these ideas pinned down as IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, IF NOT SUBJECT TO PREVIOUS PATENT ACTION!! If valid, they obviously lead to a neat rotary version using a rotor on a shaft! Man, I can't believe I'm pushing an OU MAGIC MAGNET MOTOR!!! Screw tht ramp! Full steam ahead!!! Frank Stenger X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 16:30:41 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:19:55 -0700 From: Jim Richardson To: Epitaxy Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:05:03 +0500 Subject: Re: ferro fluid Resent-Message-ID: <"d5bzf.0.7o3.QWVbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3668 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 02-Jun-97, Epitaxy wrote: >I am using one of the toy glass "magic marbles" filled with iron powder. >The "magic marbles" need to have the colorful (or glow in the dark) liquid >poured out of them and replaced with fine mesh iron powder. Works very >well with SMOT. >At 12:34 PM 6/2/97 -0400, you wrote: >>SAM GORDON wrote: >>> >>> Has anyone tried ferro fluid in a glass ball yet?? >> >> >>I had suggested using a ferrofluid filled tube a while back. Sort of >>like a magnetic pump..... >> >>Greg didn't seem to think it would work well because the magnetic >>particles are very small. The ramps seem to need a large ferrous mass >>to create the proper magnetic differentail. >> >>Dave DeLeo >>ddeleo@ix.netcom.com >> >> I am new to this list and I think I have an idea of how the SMOT works, but could someone give me some more detailed info re: theory and construction? thanks all -- Jim Richardson anarchist, pagan and proud of it. http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 09:39:26 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 12:34:56 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ferro fluid References: <199706021634.MAA25253@ns.bluegrass.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"EFGPZ2.0.2V4.RSlap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3584 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com SAM GORDON wrote: > > Has anyone tried ferro fluid in a glass ball yet?? I had suggested using a ferrofluid filled tube a while back. Sort of like a magnetic pump..... Greg didn't seem to think it would work well because the magnetic particles are very small. The ramps seem to need a large ferrous mass to create the proper magnetic differentail. Dave DeLeo ddeleo@ix.netcom.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 09:33:33 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:32:59 -0700 From: "SAM GORDON" To: Subject: ferro fluid Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:34:58 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"I3LGy1.0.KK7.wMlap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3583 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Has anyone tried ferro fluid in a glass ball yet?? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 10:10:54 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:10:34 -0700 X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:11:11 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: ferro fluid Resent-Message-ID: <"p45Bj3.0.HR2.9wlap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3585 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I am using one of the toy glass "magic marbles" filled with iron powder. The "magic marbles" need to have the colorful (or glow in the dark) liquid poured out of them and replaced with fine mesh iron powder. Works very well with SMOT. At 12:34 PM 6/2/97 -0400, you wrote: >SAM GORDON wrote: >> >> Has anyone tried ferro fluid in a glass ball yet?? > > >I had suggested using a ferrofluid filled tube a while back. Sort of >like a magnetic pump..... > >Greg didn't seem to think it would work well because the magnetic >particles are very small. The ramps seem to need a large ferrous mass >to create the proper magnetic differentail. > >Dave DeLeo >ddeleo@ix.netcom.com > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 10:29:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 19:17:23 +0200 X-Sender: harti@shell2.ba.best.com (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: First test results of new flux switch generator... Cc: newman-l@emachine.com, gwatson@microtronics.com.au Resent-Message-ID: <"UoL232.0.Ux6.8Bmap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3586 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, you can have a look at what we built at this page: http://www.overunity.de/ecklin/ecklin3.htm Look at the last Picture Fig 15 on this page. I hope it gets a bit clearer now... Better pictures coming soon. Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 07:22:59 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:22:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:20:09 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A mundane explanation of SMOTs References: <199705310000.UAA27226@big.seorf.ohiou.edu> <338FAAFB.5D16@microtronics.com.au> <3390DBDE.41D2@tiac.net> <3390BC53.3B55@microtronics.com.au> <3390F013.4A6B@tiac.net> <3390CD9B.6BB7@microtronics.com.a u> Resent-Message-ID: <"RIEgY3.0.Vg.bSjap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3581 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > Bob Shannon wrote: > > > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > If the SMOT ramp required mega hours and/or dollars to build and a lab > > > full of equipment to test, then more theory based discussion is to be > > > expected. This has been the norm for most of the ideas presented on > > > these groups. However, with SMOT that is NOT the case. > > > > Whoa there, discussion of the theory plays just as important a role in an > > easy to produce device as it does in a difficult to produce device. > > > > I fail to see your point here. > > For the first time, you can base discussion on a real device! For the first time? Not so Greg. I developed an over unity device capable of delivering (a very small amount) of power to an external load over ten years ago. Scince that time, I have chosen to study the effects of what appears to be a polarization of the quantum vacuum induced by the operation of such device, and the secondary effects of this process. Scince that time, I have had the oppertunity to study this effect from devices which deliver far higher output power levels (in the 100 watt range) and it appears that this external polarization is indeed present in all devices that do acheive 'over unity' operation. This 'external polarization' of the quantum vacuum may well be related to the effects of EMF related health effects. Strangley enough, some devices which do not acheive over unity operation also appear to produce these effects. Several associates of mine, and myself included have spent a great deal of time re-equipping our labs and shops with the tools and instruments needed to study the possible effects that appear to be associated with this 'new' technology. There is a great deal of this work in progress, so to stop this work to persue construction and testing of your ramp would take effort away from long running projects and prior commitments. So while I'm quite sure that 'over unity' operation is indeed possible, I am not at all sure that it is any 'better' a technology than fossile fuels, nuclear power, or other power generation methods. This might point back to the 'no free lunch' philosoph y often mentioned on the list server. Greg wrote: > > > Thats why I keep on saying "Build a SMOT ramp, then talk". > > > > > > It improves the signal to noise ratio. I had responded: > > Your beginning to sound a bit like an 'infomercial' Greg, but I'll be happy > > to do my part in keeping the SNR down by not posting on the subject from > > now on. > > Hi Bob, > > That is NOT what I or this group needs. > > We need all the input we can get. Yours included!!!!!!!!!! > > Best Regards and Good Thinking, > Greg Understood Greg. By the way, the comment of mine your responding to was a private email, not one sent over the list server. I can easily understand that with the ammount of emails you must be receiving lately that this is a very easily made oversight, ( I've made this one several times myself!) and so no offense is taken. I would only like to add that my 'infomercial' comment was not intended for distribution over the list server, as a simple matter of respect. Never the less, I'll respectfully bow out of the ramp discussions, and preserve bandwidth for those who have actually built the devices. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 11:12:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:07:00 -0500 (CDT) From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini Questions Reply-To: w9sz@prairienet.org Resent-Message-ID: <"SnmQD1.0.ZG1.xpmap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3587 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > >>> >>>Thought you might enjoy reading the following information re Bedini: >>> >>>Bedini originally obtain "his" idea for the motor from conversations with >>>Tom Bearden whom Bedini met via KABC during a series of interviews >>>w/Bearden c. 1984. Bearden in turn learn ideas about such motors from two >>>individuals whom he sent from Huntsville, AL to Lucedale, MS to meet with >>>Joseph Newman and "pick his brain" in 1984. Joe has a number of letters >>>from Bearden in 1984 congratulating him on his major discovery in >>>electromagnetism. >>> > >>I have mentioned this before. Somehow it doesn't sink in. >> >>The device in question has no motors in it, nor does it have any magnets. >>It is strictly a battery-switching device. > >To quote the following re John Bedini: > >"The free energy system of John Bedini, first introduced in 1984, consists >of moderately complex electronic circuit USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D.C. >MOTOR to produce sufficient electrical power to drive a load while the >battery (source) is continually being recharged." [emphasis added] > Well, the device we were discussing is the Brandt-Tesla Switch. It simply consists of 4 banks of batteries and a switching circuit. The theory of how it supposedly works is the same as the theory of how the Bedini free-enery device supposedly works. The s ecret is in the BATTERY, not the motor. The motor just generates a voltage of a very specific type of waveform applied to the battery. According to Bedini and Bearden, the magic takes place in the battery. See the "Toward A New Electromagnetics" series of papers by Bearden. > >>>"Seeking to understand more about the nature of this alleged 'free energy' >>>device, I read the text of a speech by Thomas Bearden, titled, 'Toward a >>>New Electromagnetics,' as it appeared in an edition of Energy Unlimited. >>>Bearden states that 'the universe is filled with fantastic amounts of >>>anenergy; ultimately, that is what the unviersal vacuum is.' Anenergy, >>>Bearden defines as a flow or flux of virtual particles -- bringing to mind >>>Joseph Newman's concept of gyroscopic particles." (end of quote from >>>INFINITE ENERGY NEWSLETTER) >>> >>>__________________________________________________________________ >>> >>>The point of the above is that Bedini "learned" of how to construct such a >>>device from Mr. Bearden. Mr. Bearden in turn "learned" how to build such a >>>device from two gentlemen (friends of Bearden) whom he sent from >>>Huntsville, Alabama to visit Joseph Newman and see an working prototype in >>>the early months of 1984 -- we have a photograph of their visit with Joseph >>>Newman. These two gentleman reported back to Mr. Bearden as to how Joseph >>>Newman's machine operated. It's easy to see why Bedini wasn't interested >>>in patenting the invention: it wasn't his to patent in the first place. >>>Joseph Newman had originally filed a patent application five years earlier >>>(before 1984). >>> >>>Moreover, these "anerergy particles" --- gyroscopic particles --- >>>specifically originate from the magnetic fields generated in the coil and >>>magnet rotor of his Motor/Generators. Joseph Newman has described this >>>mechanical process in great detail. >>> >>>In the final analysis, if one wants to understand the essence of this >>>technology, I would sincerely recommend that one study the _innovator_ of >>>this technology: Joseph Newman .... not J. Bedini. >>> >snip-- >> >>Please read Bearden's papers in detail. The anenergy he describes is not >>gyroscopic but rather random in nature ... he credits the theory in part to >>Timothy Boyer and Hal Puthoff, and in part to Ilya Prigogine >>(Nobel-prize winner for his work in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics). >>The basic particles are random. Gyroscopic particles are simply larger >>accumulations of this more fundamental randomity. > >I am not claiming that Bearden claims such "anenergy particles" are >gyroscopic. What I am stating is that Joseph Newman has stated that the >"anenergy particles" spoken of by Bearden are actually "gyroscopic >particles." As Joseph Newman describes, the "random" flow of such >gyroscopic particles represents "heat." > Not true. I am not talking about the random flow of gyroscopic particles. I am talking about what you may call the "fabric of spacetime", also called "virtual particles" and many other names. They are MANY MANY orders of magnitude smaller than the gyroscopic particles. It takes an enormous quantity of them to make up one gyrosc opic particle. They may be considered to be the basis of the physical universe. Maybe I should get this on vortex-l? Maybe it doesn't belong on freenrg-l? I'm currently not on the vortex-l list. > >Best regards, > >Evan Soule' >josephnewman@earthlink.net Zack -- X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 11:34:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Jun 97 14:24:04 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: On the ropes? No surrender! Resent-Message-ID: <"Ac0T43.0.Iq1.M2nap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7762 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Gnorts, vorts, Well ... I refuse to surrender ... yet. But I have to admit I'm weakening. We made a three-ramp SMOT, and the fact is that the ball runs up the first ramp, then comes to a momentary halt at the start of the second. It then runs up the second ramp, and again comes to a momentary halt at the start of the third - before taking off up the third one. We are not as yet trying for lift between ramps, but in fact we know that there is a tiny slope in the floor. And the ball is going up that slope... Anyone, seeing this little bugger go, would have to be insane if he did not decide to continue and see the thing through. On the other hand, I had no luck with my brief effort to get a result the Ucar/Monteverde configuration. I'm willing to accept that I may have just got it wrong, though. Like, it's totally weird watching it work. I am NOT saying it is an anomaly, but it sure as hell looks like one. But I should warn anyone: this is a fiddly thing to get working. It all takes time and minor blind alleys, many of which can be avoided by doing what we all hate - reading the instructions. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 12:03:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:59:52 -0700 Date: 02 Jun 97 14:31:40 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Steel strips help Resent-Message-ID: <"zsJuD2.0.G37.dWnap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7763 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com To: Vortex I cut some steel strips out of hanging file folder and attached them to the magnets in my Kwick-Smot. That smooths out the cogging. I made some other improvements and I am now able to duplicate the behavior of Terry Blanton's device, that I observed in hi s office. However, I am still not convinced this is any indication of over-unity behavior. I don't have the right tools or manual skills to make a real replication. Several highly qualified people are hard at work on quality replications, so I think I'll learn some more lessons with what I have, and let these other people decide the issue for now. As I said, I am not convinced by the Blanton configuration because at the end of the ruler, the bead falls 14 mm, which is more than it climbs. It bounces off in a random direction. I can now make it bounce away from the ruler most of the time. I sense, b ut I cannot prove, that it may be inclined to go farther past the end of the magnets than it would on a continuing track. On a level or slightly inclined track, the ball will shoot 8 mm past end of the last magnet before falling back and oscillating. On a shortened track, even with an inclination, it bounces down about 1 cm past the end to the track and keeps rolling another 10 or 20 cm. To test what is really going on, I guess I would need a 3 mm incline and continued track 3 mm below the end of the rail . I could compare the performance of this with the level track. I am not sure this is a fair test. The 2 or 3 ramp system is a far better test, and Chris is seeing exciting results with it. Chris says he can "feel the blue hole." That is the spot near the end of the magnet array where the field strength anomalously drops off. You want to end the track right before that spot. I have not noticed a hole while slowly moving a bead or other steel object through the field. Other field variations, like the cogging, were readily apparent. Perhaps I don't have a blue hole? I once played with swinging a pendulum through magnetic fields. It is fascinating to watch. I wonder if I can detect a blue hole with this method, or perhaps with iron filings? Terry Blanton wrote: The ball starts with virtually zero momentum in the horizontal plane. Properly adjusted, the ball exits the device with significant momentum in the horizontal plane after rising several mm. I have torn it down and rebuilt it many times. I have confirmed the impact surfaces are level. You can drop a steel ball from many miles and as long as it falls vertically and is internally homogeneous, striking a rigid, horizontal surface will not impart horizontal momentum. Perhaps this steel ball test would work under ideal conditions, but when you drop ball bearings onto a wooden desk, they go off in random directions. I placed the balls quietly on a two desk surfaces to find areas that are level enough to prevent them fro m rolling. Then, holding them in a pair of pliers, I dropped them from heights of 1 to 10 cm. They skitter around at random. I also removed the magnets from the ruler and gently nudged balls off the end. The 13 mm drop and the spin imparted by going over the edge makes them roll around. They usually go 8 to 10 cm away from the end of the ruler, which is about the same distance and direction they go when the magnets are in place. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 12:21:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:18:27 -0700 Date: 02 Jun 97 15:16:37 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: One the ropes - details Resent-Message-ID: <"0RBW_3.0.I1.2onap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7764 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I should have posted details: Magnets 40*10*4mm, notched so that they can be cracked in half. These seem much weaker per unit volume than my former ferrite magnets. Stacked in four layers, to give a magnet 100*10*16mm, backed with 100*10*4mm iron strip. Ball 12.5-13mm, track 13mm wide outside but only 10mm deep. Ramp (sloped section) 86mm. People may be interested to know that the magnets come from Shaws of Sheffield in Yorkshire. This company was founded in 1783 [sic] as Hannah Shaw and Son, and they have always been a magnet company. An early advertisement is on their wall, showing that the company sold magnets for removing iron from molten brass and other fluids, and supplied "magneto-electric machines" - clearly electromagnets. I am mildly surprised that Hannah and her son were able to make a living selling magnets as early as 1783. The main problem I'm having is that I am NOT getting lift such that the magnet size (10mm) is 75% of the lift. I'm getting quite a lot less, and I'm not sure why. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 14:00:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:58:30 -0700 Date: 02 Jun 97 16:56:11 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Steel strips help Resent-Message-ID: <"y6wwU2.0.887.rFpap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7771 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jed said: >>Perhaps this steel ball test would work under ideal conditions, but when you drop ball bearings onto a wooden desk, they go off in random directions.<< Note that I said "rigid" surface. The Young's modulus of wood does vary in the xy plane due to the grain of the wood. I use a ceramic tile for the impact surface. Congratulations on achieving roll away. The news from Notingham is interesting, innit? Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 14:46:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Jun 97 17:27:56 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Steel strips help Resent-Message-ID: <"NUJPq1.0.MQ5.-opap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7775 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jed, > I wonder if I can detect a blue hole with this method, or perhaps > with iron filings? Soo devised a method using a pin, held lightly between the fingers, which can be moved along/above/inside the track to feel the fields. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 14:35:56 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 07:02:43 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: On the ropes? No surrender! References: <970602182404_100433.1541_BHG88-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ez1oq1.0.yO5.Wopap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3590 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Gnorts, vorts, > > Well ... I refuse to surrender ... yet. But I have to admit I'm > weakening. > > We made a three-ramp SMOT, and the fact is that the ball runs up the > first ramp, then comes to a momentary halt at the start of the second. > It then runs up the second ramp, and again comes to a momentary halt > at the start of the third - before taking off up the third one. > > We are not as yet trying for lift between ramps, but in fact we know > that there is a tiny slope in the floor. And the ball is going up > that slope... > > Anyone, seeing this little bugger go, would have to be insane if he > did not decide to continue and see the thing through. > > On the other hand, I had no luck with my brief effort to get a result > the Ucar/Monteverde configuration. I'm willing to accept that I may > have just got it wrong, though. > > Like, it's totally weird watching it work. I am NOT saying it is an > anomaly, but it sure as hell looks like one. > > But I should warn anyone: this is a fiddly thing to get working. It all > takes time and minor blind alleys, many of which can be avoided by > doing what we all hate - reading the instructions. > > Chris Hi Chris, That the ball stops makes me believe you are not using the "S" curves. They will really make a lot of difference as they allow the ball to keep rolling. I believe most of the energy is in the rotation of the ball. The 3mm radius on the top edge of the exit also makes the exit adjustment much easier and softer. Glad to hear of your success. I can still remember the tingles running up and down my back when my first ramp worked. My brain then split in two. One side KNOWING what the final outcome would be, the other refusing to believe what my eyes had seen. Fo r weeks after, I looked for where and how I had got it wrong. I STILL am a sceptic. Maybe I am too used to living in pollution. Anyway, congrats. Now, achieve a 1.5 to 2mm level rollaway and then build the track. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 14:53:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 07:20:38 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: One the ropes - details References: <970602191637_100433.1541_BHG98-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Rm0PD3.0.946.H3qap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3592 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > I should have posted details: > > Magnets 40*10*4mm, notched so that they can be cracked in half. These seem much > weaker per unit volume than my former ferrite magnets. > Stacked in four layers, to give a magnet 100*10*16mm, backed with > 100*10*4mm iron strip. > > Ball 12.5-13mm, track 13mm wide outside but only 10mm deep. Ramp > (sloped section) 86mm. > > People may be interested to know that the magnets come from Shaws of > Sheffield in Yorkshire. This company was founded in 1783 [sic] as > Hannah Shaw and Son, and they have always been a magnet company. An > early advertisement is on their wall, showing that the company sold > magnets for removing iron from molten brass and other fluids, and > supplied "magneto-electric machines" - clearly electromagnets. > > I am mildly surprised that Hannah and her son were able to make a living > selling magnets as early as 1783. > > The main problem I'm having is that I am NOT getting lift such that > the magnet size (10mm) is 75% of the lift. I'm getting quite a lot > less, and I'm not sure why. > > Chris HI Chris, Qhwn I build up a mag array, as a final check, I run a magnet in opposition along the array to make sure I got all the individual magnets aligned alright. The opposing magnet and the fingers are a good combination for finding weak spots along the array. Are you using "S" exits? They help to get about 25% better height at the same magnet settings. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 14:52:11 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:51:37 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:50:58 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: time to rise Resent-Message-ID: <"rf1oE.0.5s1.d1qap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3591 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Evan, Did you ever get a response on the time to rise to max. current flow on the two coils? Butch X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 15:08:39 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:07:58 -0700 From: "Science wig. sig." Subject: Magnets To: freenrg-L@eskimo.com (science) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"gTJTU2.0.uk2.zGqap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3593 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com My local Radio Shack will not be able to get in the large size magnets for over a week. Do strip magnets work? What about one very large rare earth magnet on each side? Any hints? Andrew Cantino -- +-----Andrew Cantino---------xx053@seorf.ohiou.edu---------------------+ | Free Stuff page: http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx053/hide/free.html | | Science page: http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx053/ | +----------------------------------- -----------------------------------+ | | | "Nothing Unreal Exists" - Kir-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics | | ** Information is power, use it wisely. ** | | ** No matter where you go, there you are. ** | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 15:43:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:40:45 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:38:35 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"TsFCQ.0.TQ4.ilqap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7777 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 10:40 AM 6/2/97, Rick Monteverde wrote: [snip] >As for it being >the same as the Hartman ramp Terry, no - the Hartman ramp has a built in >convergence in the field. [snip] >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI This is not necessarily true, is it? A convergent field is only one embodyment of Hartman's. It is only necessary that the drop be placed at a height/distance reached by the ball. Hartman does describe how the drop (escape) of the ball can be facilitat ed by configuring the field at the end of the ramp to lift and disperse. Seems like all that does is put a "hole" in the field there. As I mentioned earlier, that same "lift and disperse" can be turned on its side to achieve a rotatry equivalent. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 10:01:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:56:33 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 06:55:14 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Smot thoughts Resent-Message-ID: <"jRMWn1.0.bN1._o4bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7820 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Epitaxy - > BTW: Is it a wise idea to distinguish between > the "conventional" and ZPE power units? Well, I *was* just trying to make a joke there on Greg, but I think Mpower gives a couple of good reasons why it actually might be a idea worth considering. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 15:53:53 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 15:53:42 -0700 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"96VZ-.0.oA1.wxqap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3596 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Strip magnets are not suitable because the have opposite poles on the same side (like this SNSNSNSN...). The NdFeB magnets can work but are very difficult too adjust (simply too strong). It seems that with SMOT the strong magnets only create problems, I write from experience. I suggest that you postpone the "ego improvements" with rare earth magnets temporarily and get some cheap ceramic magnets (either SrFe2O3 or BaFe2O3). Remember that the magnet height should be maximum 75% of the ball diameter. At 06:07 PM 6/2/97 -0400, you wrote: >My local Radio Shack will not be able to get in the large size magnets for >over a week. Do strip magnets work? What about one very large >rare earth magnet on each side? Any hints? > >Andrew Cantino > >-- >+-----Andrew Cantino---------xx053@seorf.ohiou.edu---------------------+ >| Free Stuff page: http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx053/hide/free.html | >| Science page: http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx053/ | >+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| | >| "Nothing Unreal Exists" - Kir-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics | >| ** Information is power, use it wisely. ** | >| ** No matter where you go, there you are. ** | >| | >+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 14:18:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: mwm@aa.net Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:15:23 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 07:11:22 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"HVng7.0.eI6.gb8bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7832 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael - Thanks for sharing your results on these arrays. The direction the ball travels through your arrays is not what I expected. Interesting about the habits of the ball regarding where it gets stuck, too. I was playing with this a little bit last night. My SMOT balls are getting magnetized, and the magnetism was definitely affecting their behavior strongly where the fields were weak or well balanced. I need some ferrite filled spheres or something, because magnetized balls give bizarre results in weak-field experiments. Could you have been seeing some effects due to this? Check your SMOT balls lately? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 16:07:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 16:02:04 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 19:02:27 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: Resent-Message-ID: <"rgyGl1.0.Ri5.h3rap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7778 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Frank - > > I think we need to be very careful, these things are very interesting and > even compelling, but until we've got the thing spinning for hours on our > workbenches, we might not be any closer than anyone else ever was. They've > never worked before, AFAIK. > I agree Rick! This evening I set up one of your sawtooth rogues with 12 magnets which I think are identical to yours. (Radio Shack?) I had 6 magnets on each side of my 12 mm Al rail and my 1.5 inch steel ball. The magnets were "piggy-back" with about 1/ 4 inch overlap. With the rail dead level I noticed the following: (Note, this was a tight packing with the magnets in contact and the inside corner of the magnets clearing the ball only by about 1/8 inch.) 1. The ball would enter from a dead stop and move through 5 null points (blue holes?). 2. The ball would NOT exit but bounced off the sixth null and oscillated a while - finally captured in one of the nulls. 3. The BALL WOULD NOT START FROM AN INTERIOR NULL POINT! If I slowly pushed it past a null point, it would settle into the next one. 4. So, the ball DID traverse to the end IF started in the fringe field at EITHER END of the array. (from a stop!) I get the feeling that if I had a big circle of these sawtooth configured magnets that THE BALL WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO TRAVERSE. Linkers of SMOT ramps might try to start the balls from an INTERIOR ramp. It would be interesting to know if the ball would start from such a point! Of course, if an elevation gain is confirmed, I can't see why a roll-a-round would not close the loop. BUT, IT STILL DRIVES ME CRAZY!! I agree that it is MOST IMPORTANT to try to replicate Greg's results. If he's right, then we need to REMODEL physics! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 17:12:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 03:03:22 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??! References: Resent-Message-ID: <"4vLmW.0.qA4.53sap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7780 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Hamdi - > > Sorry about mispelling your name. It's not one I'm used to seeing in > print - won't happen again (unless it's a typo I missed). I read the letters out of sequence this one first and searched my mistyped name in your previous letters. One of my friend also call me "Hami", it is a nice convention too. > Have you aligned the sawtooth array against a straightedge so you know > there's no convergence in the array and it still works? The only way > I've been able to get it to work is with some separation between the > adjacent magnets, and even then I'm not absolutely sure of what I'm > seeing. Do you mean such a configuration? //////// ============= |||||||| My configuration like this //////////// ============== \\\\\\\\\\\\ I have not time to retry this setup until I read your posting. When I tried I observed this parameters are critical: Distance between arrays: Should be close for the forwarding effect will show but not too close for inter magnet potentials(walls) arise. Also ball are very strongly pulled by both magnet and it levitate. I used a large U profile and put the ball inside. because the levitation no rolling occur. Angle of the magnets: This time I made bigger sawtooths (more inclined magnets). It seems me the effect is reduced a bit. I made only 2 x 9 magnet stacks, and this not suffice to observe the OU effect. Because the exit potential is so large, so it is impossible to free ball out of exit. The system working principle is different from Greg's in potential criteria. In our conf iguration it seems that the ball is always in negative potential. But if it gains kinetic energy without loosing more potential energy while moving forward, It my free itself if the magnets array are long enough. I think At least 50 cm array is required. But instead of to try to escape the ball it will more easier to shape the track as a loop and turn around. If you asked me others than I answered, please write them explicitly because my English is poor. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 14:19:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: mwm@aa.net Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:15:32 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 07:20:17 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Estimate of Eddy Losses in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"1Y0Ld2.0.lI6.gb8bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7833 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace - > The N poles should be facing inwards on the left > side of the track. This is one of the things I've been wondering about too! Having a good set of 'standard' SMOT ramps and checking out details like this is the way to go. I'm still just on "phase 1". Solar water heater needed fixing yesterday, now I'm behind on my "real" w ork. For me, SMOTs will have to wait this week. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 13:14:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:12:53 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 16:10:50 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bearden and Bedini questions. Resent-Message-ID: <"DcXlf1.0.SB3.3boap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3588 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com To gain a better understanding of Mr. Beardens work, its quite helpful to see how his works have changed over time. I highly reccomend the Towards a New Electromagnetics series, which includes a number ot directly testable claims. Mr. Beardens later works, including "The Final Secret..." documents show a number of significant differances from his earlier (and better!) works. Many followers of Mr. Beardens work feel that his later writings contain a good deal of deliberate misinformation, and are at times at odds with his earlier works. Personally, I find that there is indeed some validity behind the ideas outlined in the "Towards a New Electromagnetics" series, but I have little use for Mr. Bearden's more recent works. As for Mr. Bedini, I have found that John will usually respond very promptly to emails. I have asked John quite a few direct questions on his devices, testing methods and the results posted on his web site. At times I have posted my understandings of Mr. Benini's responses over this list server, when his devices were a topic of discussion here. You might look through the freenrg-l archives for this information. One note on approaching Mr. Benini, John is reportedly a 'self taught' researcher, and may use terminology is a 'non-standard' way. I would suggest that you not try to make a point of his use of terminology or testing methods. You might also find that M r. Benini's use of some terminology is also at times quite different than Mr. Beardens use of those same terms. Jean-Louis has posted his test results on his attempts at reproducing some of Mr. Bedini's devices, including pictures of oscilloscope readings, etc. It's interesting to compare these with the data taken from John's web page, or with Mr. Bedini's persona l descriptions of these devices. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 17:32:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 03:25:20 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"PsNJ82.0.yA5.yMsap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7782 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, Francis J. Stenger" wrote: >> 3. The BALL WOULD NOT START FROM AN INTERIOR NULL POINT! If I slowly pushed it past a null point, it would settle into the next one. << This is not the case of my setup. Ball is continually pulled to the exit on every position interior. And the strength of the force was constant until the end. Also there is a dead point just before the entry and the ball is expelled backward from there. But these things are dramatically changed with the "overlap size" and the distance between arrays. If your magnet size is 25x40x10, 1/4 inch overlap is not bad . But the oversized ball(1.5 inch) is out of my range. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 16:50:26 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 16:30:23 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 19:29:02 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: skin effect Resent-Message-ID: <"_NW5O1.0.Mr2.CUrap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3597 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: skin effect Date: 97-06-02 17:12:06 EDT From: HLafonte To: Newman-L@emachine.com Evan, I haven't read everything about the wire issue, but just in case someone hasn't explained it, the current travels on the surface of the wire (skin effect), and stranded wire has more surface area than a solid wire of same cross section. This is the reaso n for less resistance to current flow. Butch LaFonte X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 15:29:17 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:29:01 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:31:54 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: time to rise Resent-Message-ID: <"p-UD72.0.ar3.haqap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3595 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Evan, >Did you ever get a response on the time to rise to max. current flow on the >two coils? >Butch Butch, A partial response; awaiting clarification --- see the most recent posts on newman-l. Evan X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 13:39:00 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:38:26 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 16:36:31 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini Questions References: <199706021807.NAA17340@bluestem.prairienet.org> Resent-Message-ID: <"4az2u3.0.db5.1zoap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3589 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Zack Widup wrote: > >>I have mentioned this before. Somehow it doesn't sink in. > >> > >>The device in question has no motors in it, nor does it have any magnets. > >>It is strictly a battery-switching device. Evan Soule responded: > >To quote the following re John Bedini: > > > >"The free energy system of John Bedini, first introduced in 1984, consists > >of moderately complex electronic circuit USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D.C. > >MOTOR to produce sufficient electrical power to drive a load while the > >battery (source) is continually being recharged." [emphasis added] > > > > Well, the device we were discussing is the Brandt-Tesla Switch. It simply > consists of 4 banks of batteries and a switching circuit. The theory of > how it supposedly works is the same as the theory of how the Bedini > free-enery device supposedly works. The secret is in the BATTERY, not the > motor. The motor just generates a voltage of a very specific type of > waveform applied to the battery. According to Bedini and Bearden, the > magic takes place in the battery. See the "Toward A New Electromagnetics" > series of papers by Bearden. Indeed, the Brandt Tesla Switch is claimed to operate by a process within the batteries electrolyte, and had nothing to do with large coils, the mass of copper of gyroscopic particles. It is true that Mr. Benini has also done work with meachanical devices as well, but Zack is quite correct that these are not the device in question. > >I am not claiming that Bearden claims such "anenergy particles" are > >gyroscopic. What I am stating is that Joseph Newman has stated that the > >"anenergy particles" spoken of by Bearden are actually "gyroscopic > >particles." As Joseph Newman describes, the "random" flow of such > >gyroscopic particles represents "heat." > > > > Not true. I am not talking about the random flow of gyroscopic particles. > I am talking about what you may call the "fabric of spacetime", also > called "virtual particles" and many other names. They are MANY MANY > orders of magnitude smaller than the gyroscopic particles. It takes an > enormous quantity of them to make up one gyroscopic particle. They may be > considered to be the basis of the physical universe. Quite correct Zack, Bearden's discussion of the virtual particle flux of the quantum vacuum is indeed a totally different concept than Mr. Newman's gyroscopic particles. The processes Mr. Bearden outlines in his early work (exophoton and exoelectron emission) are totally unrelated to Mr. Newman's work, despite claims to the contrary, or the threats of legal action that have been made. Mr. Bearden's early works seek to extend conventional EM theory, not to replace it with a mechanical analogy. The heart of Mr. Bearden's theories envolve so called 'scalar waves' which are quite distinct from any form of mechanical energy, as is attribut ed to Mr. Newmans gyroscopic particle theories. But I will agree that Benini's work is not the place I reccomend starting your investigation. I will also disagree with Mr. Soule by not reccomending Mr. Newman's works however. What I do reccomend is that you read the earlier Bearden material, then compare it to his later works and note and significant differances. Where such differances are found, discard the latter Bearden material! Then actually conduct experiments to test the ideas presented in the early Bearden material. You may be quite supprised to find that quite a bit of it actually works as claimed. There are some 'how to' construction projects on Bill's web site to get you started along these lines. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 23:16:47 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:16:37 -0700 X-Sender: bscott@metz.une.edu.au Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 16:15:45 +1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: "Bradley W. Scott" Subject: Re: Bearden Questions Resent-Message-ID: <"4ymYY2.0.xE3.4Lcap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3569 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com At 17:56 1/06/97 -0400, you wrote: >To: Free Energy List > >A little over a year ago, I read an document entitled "The Final >Secret of Free Energy", by T.E. Bearden, which I downloaded from >the web. In response to that document, I composed this letter to >Tom Bearden, but I did not know his address, so I am posting it >here in the hopes that someone here knows his address and can >forward it to him. Also, perhaps someone can venture an answer to >some of these questions. > The last thing I have found by Tom is at: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/fogal_device/ Cheers, Brad Bradley W. Scott Centre for Water Policy Research UNE, Armidale, NSW Ph: 067 73 2420 Australia 2351 Fax: 067 73 3237 Email:bscott@metz.une.edu.au Website: http://metz.une.edu.au/~bscott X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 17:37:46 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:38:10 -0700 (PDT) X-ROUTED: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:34:54 -0500 X-TCP-IDENTITY: Paula Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 20:33:25 -0400 From: paula opelc Organization: sisters of silicone, inc To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets References: <3.0.32.19970602155340.00b198b0@mail.localaccess.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"fonf3.0.kS5.iTsap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3600 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Epitaxy wrote: > > Strip magnets are not suitable because the have opposite poles on the same > side (like this SNSNSNSN...). The NdFeB magnets can work but are very > difficult too adjust (simply too strong). It seems that with SMOT the > strong magnets only create problems, I write from experience. > > I suggest that you postpone the "ego improvements" with rare earth magnets > temporarily and get some cheap ceramic magnets (either SrFe2O3 or BaFe2O3). > Remember that the magnet height should be maximum 75% of the ball diameter. > > At 06:07 PM 6/2/97 -0400, you wrote: > >My local Radio Shack will not be able to get in the large size magnets for > >over a week. Do strip magnets work? What about one very large > >rare earth magnet on each side? Any hints? > > > >Andrew Cantino > > > >-- > >+-----Andrew Cantino---------xx053@seorf.ohiou.edu---------------------+ > >| Free Stuff page: http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx053/hide/free.html | > >| Science page: http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx053/ | > >+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >| | > >| "Nothing Unreal Exists" - Kir-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics | > >| ** Information is power, use it wisely. ** | > >| ** No matter where you go, there you are. ** | > >| | > >+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > Just found out that you can get magnets from "industrial supply houses" in your local area, check out yellow pages...hope this helps....steve X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 18:00:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 19:57:14 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Still Least! (SMOT) Resent-Message-ID: <"9N17e2.0.vW6.Xmsap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7784 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com We spent all day trying to get SMOT action to occur at EarthTech. We cut a very nice "S" exit on ramp #1 with our milling machine and, yes, that does preserve much of the ball's kinetic energy when it goes to the next ramp. After MUCH fiddling with things, we did succeed in linking two ramps together and achieving a table-top roll out....but that is 12mm BELOW the ball's starting height! As a simple comparison, we inclined a straight piece of U-channel such that one end was 12mm higher than the other end....no magnets anywhere. The ball traverses this "device" and roars off the end with MUCH greater velocity than it does when exiting the two-ramp SMOT. Same vertical drop in both cases. Clearly we are not replicating Greg's claims. We are not complaining, just reporting. Possibly our "short" magnets are the cause. I ordered some magnets that are precisely the same height as Greg's today. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 18:01:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:59:54 -0700 Date: 02 Jun 97 20:57:47 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"7g9Ci2.0.Bf4.8osap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7785 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick asked: >>Can you have continuous linking without eventual array convergence or blue hole drop-through regauging? I think that's what it comes down to.<< We might find the answer when we get to see the RMOD. I think the rolling resistance plays a huge part in this. I tried my configuration with a wooden rule instead of the hard plastic and could not get roll-away on a horizontal rail. Also, to get roll-away, the ball must strike a rigid surface. I get virt ually no roll-away when it strikes corrugated paper. Can you say "teflon rails"? If you have any PTFE, try just a smige on your rail. KY Jelly *does not work*. Terry X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 18:46:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:46:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:39:52 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: N gauge loop References: <3.0.32.19970602155340.00b198b0@mail.localaccess.com> <33936654.209A@southconn.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"FI5lV2.0.FK7.UTtap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3603 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I am trying to close the loop using N gauge model railroad track as greg had suggested earlier today. I have an oval with 9 3/4" radius loops (the tightest turn I could get in N gauge)and a straight piece of track through the ramps rather than U channel (much smoother and easier to work with). At the end of the ramp the track is nothched and bent down at an angle to allow it to release while still maintaining some forward momentum. (sort of like Greg's S cut in the U channel) I am using arrays of Radio Shack magnets 5 long by 3 wide with a steel backing strip for one ramp, and for the other a 4X3 magnet arrays w/ steel strip (radio shack ran out of magnets, I have to get more tomorrow and lengthen that array to match the first one). I get about 1cm lift on a 16mm ball. Without magnets a ball released from the top of one ramp will start to climb the next ramp by itself. But the problem arises when I put in the magnets. The ball climbs the first ramp w/ no problem, but when it is released there is enough drawback to slow the ball down preventing it from reaching the start of the next ramp.(it only gets about halfway around the top half of the curve I have spent several hours playing with the adjustments but haven't had any luck. I've attached a quick sketch of what my loop looks like. If anyone has any suggestions I would appreciate them. Thanks in advance, Dave DeLeo ddeleo@ix.netcom.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 18:56:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:46:12 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: N gauge loop References: <3.0.32.19970602155340.00b198b0@mail.localaccess.com> <33936654.209A@southconn.com> <339375E8.2D67@ix.netcom.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"OnjxD2.0.WC1.Jbtap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3604 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Woops forgot to attach that drawing of my loop Here it is...... Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\LOOP.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 19:31:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 19:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 22:26:58 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: <33935660.C30C48A1@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"ARcKd3.0.RP2.n3uap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7789 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > If your magnet > size is 25x40x10, 1/4 inch overlap is not bad. But the oversized > ball(1.5 inch) is out of my range. > Hamdi, my magnets are actually 22x48x9 - not far from your numbers. My son may get me a variety of ball sizes to try. Also, perhaps I should increase the width of the array to array gap. As it is, the ball clears the inner magnet corners by only 2 or 3 mm and this causes a very strong "cog" effect. Also, the center of my large ball runs 2 or 3 mm ABOVE the TOP of the magnets - so the downward force is large. So far, this is a very rough apparatus! Frank Stenger X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 18:07:14 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:04:43 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini Questions References: <9706022159.AB05669@atom.om.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"WREAf2.0.Ar6.Evsap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3601 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com mindtech@om.com.au wrote: > If we can assume you have done this, Bob, please tell us, aside from your > own scalar detector, which ones worked (best) for you. What was the > experimental setup and how were the results monitored? Can you provide > enough detail for it to be replicated by any member of this group? Let's not > keep doing the same silly things over and over. > > Peter Nielsen I'm not quite sure how to answer your request, other than to proceed to release plans for additional devices I have designed. I have been tinkering with bits and peices of Bearden's works for many years now. I beleive that I have shown the production and detection of these so-called scalar waves, as documented in the articles on Bills web site. In addition to those devices, I have originated several other detector designs, which I hope to document and publish in the same manner as those already avaialble. This does take a good deal of time however. Beyond this, I have attempted a number of experiments in what is described as 'scalar interferometry', 'scalar resonance' and other areas. As in all experimental work, my results have been a mixed bag of sucesses and failures. Thoughout more than ten years of tinkering, it is my opinion that there are indeed phenomena that cannot be fully described by the application of conventional theory alone. In all cases, I have had my work reproduced by other researchers, with far more s uccesses than failures. In light of how long it has taken to document the devices currently on Bill's web site, I cannot see how I can fully answer your questions over the whole of my work in this area. I have gone so far as to make components available to interested builders that wish to reproduce the devices I have documented and released. There are a number of successful builers that have reproduced these devices on this list. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 20:05:47 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:04:46 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:06:58 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: The Scientific Method. Resent-Message-ID: <"ZbpKF3.0.DI3.Bduap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3605 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Evan Soule' wrote: > >> It is interesting that you recommend reading Bearden's earlier work and you >> do not recommend Joseph Newman works, when Bearden himself wrote: "he >> (Joseph Newman) does have a very good Theory to explain what he has done." >> >> Evan > snip-- > >I have made an effort to try to understand Mr. Newman's theory, going so >far as to spend some time with his writtings, but I'm afraid that I keep >getting back to issues where his theory fails to describe experimental >reality. (i.e. the two coil tests, etc.) Of course, Bob, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. As I'm sure you would have no doubt, Joseph Newman would differ with you concerning your understanding of his Theory and he would maintain that the two coil test does indeed perform in accordanc e with his Theory. snip--- > >I have had the oppertunity to personally speak with both Mr. Bearden and >Mr. Newman. When I discussed experimental data that did not match some >points of Mr. Beardens theories, he was very interested in the specifics >of the tests, and what implications this might have on the then current >form of his theories. When I attempted to discuss experimental data >that did not match Mr. Newmans theory, I was verbally attacked, his >first move was to accuse me of deceit, and then to move to threats of >violence. Not having been a participant in your telephone call I cannot elucidate upon the specifics of your mutual discussion. However, if Joseph Newman had indeed become upset with you, this would not be surprising. A "temper" is no indication either "positive" or "negative" of the "rightness" of one's ideas. If this were true then Isaac Newton, for instance, could have been viewed as a "moron." Mr. Newton had a rather "powerful temper" and a "short-fuse" when it came to his perception of people for whom he h ad no respect. Ditto for Dr. Semmelweis -- who also was quite emotional....so much so, that people even considered him "crazy." > >Now which set of behavior might be described as being objective rather >than 'absolute subjective'? Behavior in and of itself is neither "objective" nor "absolute-subjective." It is with reference to "knowledge" that this question arises. All knowledge is subjective. The question is: is the knowledge in question "absolute-subjective knowledge" or "re lative-subjective knowledge"? (see below) > >Any theory is only a model of reality, not an explanation of reality. >The quality of a theory is a function of how well is describes >experimental reality, not how easy is is to grasp in the minds of men. >Nature is under no obligation to behave in ways we find comfortable or >even comprehensible. By this standard, some small portions of Mr. >Beardens works score very well, while Mr. Newmans theory simply fails to >correctly describe experimental reality. This is, of course, your opinion Bob, and you are certainly entitled to it. I would disagree with it. Moreover, his Theoretical description of the mechanical behavior of the Gyroscopic Particle _precisely_ explains the phenomena of "Fleming's Rule." Ditto for magnetic attraction/repulsion. Since you mention "theory" as a "model of reality", this brings me to a discussion of "truth." Astrophysicist Andrew J. Galambos developed a singular way of approaching the question of "truth" --- For his purposes, he defined "truth" as simply "that which is observable." No more, no less. The question of observation related to one's five senses. For him, the _real_ question was regarding "RIGHTNESS" (see below)....or, to phrase another way: Rathe r than "search for truth," one should consider "searching for rightness." [BTW, this form of "rightness" does not imply that others are "wrong"] The conclusions reached by a given individual regarding her/his observations could be regarded as "KNOWLEDGE." [science = _organized_ knowledge] While he stated that "all knowledge is indeed _subjective_" --- there are TWO types of "subjective knowledge"*: 1) ABSOLUTE subjective knowledge and 2) RELATIVE subjective knowledge The former is based upon _repeatable_ parameters (via the Scientific Method) while the latter was resident in the mind of one individual, e.g. hallucinations. [*With payment of gratitude to Arthur Eddington's original epistomological discussion in his chapter entitled "Selective Subjectivism" from his book, The Philosophy of Physical Science] As Galambos stated, "If you conduct a scientific test, the results are subjective to you. If I repeat the same test, the results are _still_ subjective to me. But if I repeat the same test (per the Scientific Method) and arrive at the same conclusion, I may then state that (for me) such knowledge is ABSOLUTELY subjective." He went on to add that "there is no such thing as 'objective' knowledge", e.g., what would be universe be like if we were not here. But if we were not here, who would do the "knowin g"? The question of 'objective' knowledge becomes an operationally pointless question --- a bit like discussing/debating "how many angels dance on the head of a pin?" And to answer this latter question, once and for all: 28 ANGELS!! :-) And whatever your answer would be -- it would be _just as good as mine_!!! :-) For Dr. Galambos, the significant question was not "what is truth?" but rather, "How do you know you are RIGHT (in Physical Science)?" He developed an explanation for ABSOLUTE RIGHTNESS in PHYSICAL SCIENCE: Truth (that which is observable) + Validity (logical thought processes) = ABSOLUTE RIGHTNESS in PHYSICAL SCIENCE This description dovetailed with the Scientific Method's Four Steps: 1. OBSERVATION (for purposes of data gathering) 2. HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION 3. EXTRAPOLATION 4. OBSERVATION (for purposes of corroboration) PLUS OCCAM'S RAZOR Thus, his description of ABSOLUTE RIGHTNESS in PHYSICAL SCIENCE and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD are related: 1. OBSERVATION ---------------- | | 2. HYPOTHESIS ------- | | | VALIDITY + TRUTH = RATIONALITY | | 3. EXTRAPOLATION ------- | | | 4. OBSERVATION ----------------- PLUS OCCAM'S RAZOR Therefore, Dr. Galambos states that RATIONALITY represents the consistent utilization/application of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, i.e., they are equivalent. Dr. Galambos had a second significant question, "How do you know you are RIGHT (in Volitional Science)?" [Volition = act of choosing] He innovated an explanation for ABSOLUTE RIGHTNESS in VOLITIONAL SCIENCE: Truth (that which is observable) + Validity (logical thought processes) + Morality (absence of coercion) = ABSOLUTE RIGHTNESS in VOLITIONAL SCIENCE Out of this postulation one could generate the basis for the operational requirements of a stable and durable civilization ..... but that is another discussion entirely. One of the very distant conclusions which could be reached is that: "Stable and durable civilizations are _cybernetic_." And, the flip side, "Any culture which is _not_ cybernetic will eventually collapse." [He is employing the cybernetic concept with respect to all four scientific domains: Physical, Biological, Volitional, and Sub-Volitional Sciences.] Please forgive the fact that I am presenting the above without the epistomological foundations which were developed by Dr. Galambos relative to the out-of-context conclusions presented above. Some years ago, one physicist --- who stated that while he did implicitly use the essence of the Scientific Method in his daily research --- he nevertheless found Dr. Galambos's simple and explicit description of the Scientific Method to be one of the mos t useful expositions on the subject which he had ever come across. >No matter how attractive of seductive a theory might be, if it fails to >correctly describe actual behavior, it must be revised. Mr. Newman is >so far totally unwilling to accept the possibility that he may have made >any error, however small. >His arrogance is so great that he cannot accept nor consider any >evidence of such an error. "Arrogance" is _your_ perception based upon your own set of "relative-subjective" guidelines. Was Newton arrogant? Was Semmelweis arrogant? And if so, so what? At the time of Newton's life there were indeed those whom Newton perceived as "nitpickers, quibblers, and or naysers" with his new "Theory." He had absolute no patience with such individuals. Newton eventually proved his rightness to the world. In the 17th century, Edmund Halley believed that Newton was right regarding his theories and that ultimately the world would believe what Newton believed to be right. Fortunately for us, Edmund Halley has the patience and understanding to interface with the "innovator-type" .... and, as a result of his patience and understanding, he convinced Newton to published his PRINCIPIA. [Or, more accurately, Halley himself published it since apparently the royal society would not. They chose instead to publish, I believe, a book on "fish."] If it could be arranged (and it would be an interesting volitional exercise) I would personally enjoy listening to a calm, private discourse between yourself and Joseph Newman regarding this aspect of his work. Under such "controlled" conditions, Joseph Newman could listen to your elucidation of your position and you could also listen to Joseph Newman's explanation, in depth. While this would be (IMO) "ideal" -- we do not live in an "ideal world." So one does the best one can. I have stated this before and I say it here again: it is my opinion that Joseph Newman has a deeper and more profound understanding of the fundamental of electromagnetism that perhaps anyone else alive at this time. I say this after h aving known him for nearly 14 years. It may well be that "the world" as such will not realize this until after his death. While this would definitely be "his loss" in the "short run", it would be "civilization's loss" in the "long run." In many ways [s ome subtle, some obvious, some even questionable [by others]! :-)] I will do my best to try to insure that such losses do not happen. "Innovators" great or minor can be a "funny" lot. Often while they live, a relatively few people can successfully interface with them on a regular basis. This is in large measure a consequence of the Disclosure Barrier (a concept innovated by Dr. A. J. Galambos) which is, in general, an implicit process which is hostile to the innovator's release of innovation. Ultimately, with the rigorous application of high Volitional Science technology, such a Disclosure Barrier will be replaced, in the words of Dr. Galambos, with a "Disclosure Shield." And this will take time and patience. Gyroscopically yours, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding of the relationship between heat (gyroscopic particles/electromagnetic energy) and Matter." --- JOSEPH NEWMAN X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 21:11:07 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 21:10:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Bmd2323@aol.com Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:09:18 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: time machine Resent-Message-ID: <"WDj3J1.0.En5._avap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3606 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi all! I forwarded the e-mail discussing the prototype time machine to Art Bell the late night radio talk show host and he wants the phone # of the inventor. You can e-mail him at ArtBell@aol.com. Good luck! Bmd2323@aol.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 17:02:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:56:02 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:54:44 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Chevron arrnagement Resent-Message-ID: <"QAyn_2.0.XU2.HyAbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7852 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris - The first time I made one of these chevron or sawtooth arrays, it looked like this as viewed from above: / \ / \ / \ That really is a nice approximation of the angles and the spacing too, assuming you're not using one of those "Olde English" fonts or something. The sides facing inwards towards the rails were the usual N along one side and S along the other which we have been using. The thing that got my attention with this is that each pair of magnets is like an entire SMOT array - see? It's a SMOT ramp fractal. Each pair is canted inwards at one end. But if you leave a wide gap between the arrays, that is - place the arrays further away from the rail in the center, can you see that the blue holes of the narrow end of one pair sort of blends in with the blue hole at the wide end of the next pair? They're like a bunch of linked ramps. You have to back off like that to spread the fiel ds out so things smooth out and merge. Like throwing two pebbles in the water together near each other, the gradients in the waves and interactions from each splash are sharp and distinct. Out further, they smooth in and merge. I barely understand why this works though, and I get confused by Hamdi's steeper angled arrays. The polarity there becomes sort of ambiguous, and Michael's arrays seemed to work 'backwards'. I like the more straightforward N-S faces inwards situation. I was using bigger and stronger magnets for this so far. I haven't yet assembled one with the small fridge magnets yet - they might be as good but work closer in. Too close and things start to cog and bog. There's far less lift power here, but you shouldn 't need it - the idea is to get one long ramp up to the altitude that the four regular ramps would get, and avoid the up-downs along the way. One fairly serious drawback - using weaker fields means that the system is going to be much more sensitive to mag netized balls. But it seems like others are using the chevron array in a way that allows using stronger fields up close to the rail. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 17:09:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 17:06:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:04:39 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 Resent-Message-ID: <"s1NF83.0.RM3.B6Bbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7853 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace - Here's what I've been visualizing for the Cunningham inspired rotary Rogue SMOT: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ upper magnets (stator) ====||===||===||==== rotating disc, seen edge on w/ embedded ferrite rods ///////////////////// lower magnets (stator) Rods might be good, as they look like balls from the side but link flux through themselves well with the polarity of the magnets like the Gary device which also uses a rod. Thing is, I just can't imagine any of this really working! You think??? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 22:59:37 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:59:48 -0700 (PDT) X-ROUTED: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 01:56:02 -0500 X-TCP-IDENTITY: Paula Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 01:56:29 -0400 From: paula opelc Organization: sisters of silicone, inc To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Question on SMOT References: <19970321.082117.12526.0.tv@juno.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"wV677.0.cc1.EBxap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3607 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Does the ball, moving thru the SMOT, cause enough change in the magnetic field to induce a voltage in a coil of wire placed next to the ramp? If so, some power may be extracted from the system, over and above what is being used to move the ball...even more over unity....if anyone tries it would be interested in hearing what they get.......thanks.....steve X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 23:21:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:20:36 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:20:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"bSEcH2.0.-E3.qUxap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7797 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Rick, Thanks for the info! Tried several configurations that looked promising but still not OU. Maybe could be used in a rotor design. In Kawai patent he used only one set of magnets in his rotor design. Test Results: 1. "V" shaped Hamdi worked best (see A below) with no spacing between magnets in array. In the diagram, the ball (13mm) rolls left to right. Stacked 1x23 magnets, (6 x9.5hi x19 long mm ea.) 45 deg. at midpoint of each magnet, per array, _parallel_ to each other with track (13x13mm Al) in middle. In opposite configuration to V or a lamda (see B below), the ball did not make it pass 4 magnets. /////// \\\\\\\\ A ===o====> worked B ====o====> Didn't work \\\\\\\ //////// a. On level 190 mm long track the ball rolled to the end and exits or gets attacted to either side magnet array end. This was unique due to the ball would go all the way in one direction. This could be configured i nto a circle for continuous rotation? If the ball got stuck it would lock up in one position on the array. On the SMOT array the ball would oscilate back and forth in the magnetic field. b. The 1x23 array wasn't strong enough for exit any slope greater than 6mm. c. With 2x10 array the ball could go up to 13mm and exit just like SMOT Phase 1. d. To start the ball rolling it had to be placed within the magnetic field between the arrays. Could not be pulled into the array like SMOT. c. If the ball didn't exit the end it would oscilate only on the last magnet pair. This is the same as SMOT. 2. With (9.5w x 22.25h x 47.6mm) magnets in 1x3 array a 16mm ball would exit just like Phase 1 SMOT. Interesting design, still needs work, Best Regards, Michael At 10:40 AM 6/2/97 -1000, you wrote: >Michael - > > > Interesting design! I'll try it. What > > was the spacing betwn the magnets and the > > angle you found that worked? Ball, magnet > > and ramp size? > >Here's some detail. > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 23:35:09 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:35:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 23:35:19 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Estimate of Eddy Losses in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"slyQj1.0.SV2.aixap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3608 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I use glass channels and glass ball filled with powdered iron. I was forced to go this way because of my unwise (in hindsight) choice to use strong NdFeB magnets. The eddy current losses are proportional to the magnitude of magnetic field. Only the mag netic field differential between the top & bottom of the ramp is responsible for moving the ball through SMOT (excluding far ramp attraction), the absolute flux intensity doesn't increase the SMOT effect and makes the eddy current losses and engineering p roblems enormous. I think I will gave to abandon my "ego improvements" and get some refrigerator magnets :) BTW: I did managed to get 4 NDFeB SMOT ramps linked reliably with great effort, but did not close the loop. The "leakage" attraction from the powerful NdFeB magnets outside SMOT ramp is very strong and difficult to deal with, forcing me to increase the track length which in turn increases friction losses because now the ball has to travel so far to get away form the "leakage" attraction. At 07:22 AM 6/3/97 +0400, you wrote: >Hi Barry, > >This is just I am thinking (usualy). [eddy losses on tracks] > >You wrote: > > Here is a simple estimate of the Eddy current > losses in the SMOT device. > > Basic model: as ball rolls down channel, it carries with it > a perturbing magnetic field of strength dB. These field > lines cut through an ~ L x L sized area of the side of the > channel adjacent to the ball. The flux through this area is > Phi = dB L^2. > ><..> > > This characteristic > length scale L is roughly the extent of the ball, so L ~ r, > >Did you take account the channel is below the ball and not all the >perturbing flux pass trough the channel maybe a quarter of. Also when >the induction occur in the channel it will oppose the flux passing >trough, and the flux partially will choose an other path. Maybe with >these circumstances, eddy currents will not be so effective. But this is >a very good argument for choosing non conductive channels. > >Regards, > >Hamdi Ucar > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 23:36:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:35:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 23:35:19 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Estimate of Eddy Losses in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"TamAY2.0.CV2.Yixap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7800 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I use glass channels and glass ball filled with powdered iron. I was forced to go this way because of my unwise (in hindsight) choice to use strong NdFeB magnets. The eddy current losses are proportional to the magnitude of magnetic field. Only the mag netic field differential between the top & bottom of the ramp is responsible for moving the ball through SMOT (excluding far ramp attraction), the absolute flux intensity doesn't increase the SMOT effect and makes the eddy current losses and engineering p roblems enormous. I think I will gave to abandon my "ego improvements" and get some refrigerator magnets :) BTW: I did managed to get 4 NDFeB SMOT ramps linked reliably with great effort, but did not close the loop. The "leakage" attraction from the powerful NdFeB magnets outside SMOT ramp is very strong and difficult to deal with, forcing me to increase the track length which in turn increases friction losses because now the ball has to travel so far to get away form the "leakage" attraction. At 07:22 AM 6/3/97 +0400, you wrote: >Hi Barry, > >This is just I am thinking (usualy). [eddy losses on tracks] > >You wrote: > > Here is a simple estimate of the Eddy current > losses in the SMOT device. > > Basic model: as ball rolls down channel, it carries with it > a perturbing magnetic field of strength dB. These field > lines cut through an ~ L x L sized area of the side of the > channel adjacent to the ball. The flux through this area is > Phi = dB L^2. > ><..> > > This characteristic > length scale L is roughly the extent of the ball, so L ~ r, > >Did you take account the channel is below the ball and not all the >perturbing flux pass trough the channel maybe a quarter of. Also when >the induction occur in the channel it will oppose the flux passing >trough, and the flux partially will choose an other path. Maybe with >these circumstances, eddy currents will not be so effective. But this is >a very good argument for choosing non conductive channels. > >Regards, > >Hamdi Ucar > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 23:55:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:53:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??! Resent-Message-ID: <"Fa4n73.0.443.d-xap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7802 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 03:03 AM 6/3/97 +0400, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Rick Monteverde wrote: > >> >> Hamdi - >> >> Sorry about mispelling your name. It's not one I'm used to seeing in >> print - won't happen again (unless it's a typo I missed). > >I read the letters out of sequence this one first and searched my >mistyped name in your previous letters. One of my friend also call me >"Hami", it is a nice convention too. > > >> Have you aligned the sawtooth array against a straightedge so you know >> there's no convergence in the array and it still works? The only way >> I've been able to get it to work is with some separation between the >> adjacent magnets, and even then I'm not absolutely sure of what I'm >> seeing. > >Do you mean such a configuration? > > //////// > ============= > |||||||| > >My configuration like this > > //////////// > ============== > \\\\\\\\\\\\ > > >I have not time to retry this setup until I read your posting. When I >tried I observed this parameters are critical: > >Distance between arrays: > Should be close for the forwarding effect will show but not too close >for inter magnet potentials(walls) arise. Also ball are very strongly >pulled by both magnet and it levitate. I used a large U profile and put >the ball inside. because the levitation no rolling occur. > >Angle of the magnets: > This time I made bigger sawtooths (more inclined magnets). It seems >me the effect is reduced a bit. > > >I made only 2 x 9 magnet stacks, and this not suffice to observe the OU >effect. Because the exit potential is so large, so it is impossible to >free ball out of exit. The system working principle is different from >Greg's in potential criteria. In our configuration it seems that the >ball is always in negative potential. But if it gains kinetic energy >without loosing more potential energy while moving forward, It my free >itself if the magnets array are long enough. I think At least 50 cm >array is required. But instead of to try to escape the ball it will more >easier to shape the track as a loop and turn around. Yes, I noticed that the ball was always on a negative potential. Always moving foreward seeking the last magnet! At 190mm, in my experiment, the ball did free itself. If this was in a circle it might go continuous. Currently thinking along the line of mounting 13mm steel balls on plexiglass disk with magnetic assay on top and bottom. >If you asked me others than I answered, please write them explicitly >because my English is poor. > >Regards, > >Hamdi Ucar Hi Hamdi, Thanks for sharing your design! It has potential for a rotary unit and as a mag assay in the SMOT model. See my reply to Rick for my experiments I did today. Still working on all this. Best Regards, Michael Randall X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 00:04:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 01:09:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Estimate of Eddy Losses in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"4fKEF.0.KG3.K7yap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7803 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com > Barry Merriman wrote: > > These numbers are enormous compared to the mechanical loss > > terms---they would be by far the dominant loss term. > >John Logajan wrote: > Then "speed kills" seems to be a good design motto. Go for > altitude. > I've run off and started my "HIGH-SPEED RMOD" ... never good at the above math that got us (smotter's) here, but are you saying with no vaccuum assist or extremely well balanced system .. I'm 'Dead in the water before I finish? (ugh).. se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 00:10:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:08:44 -0700 X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 00:09:29 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Smot thoughts Resent-Message-ID: <"q7gEv.0.AO4.yByap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7804 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Good choice: "Watson" it is ! BTW: Is it a wise idea to distinguish between the "conventional" and ZPE power units? At 08:46 PM 6/2/97 -1000, you wrote: > >Maybe so. But perhaps we need a new term for Watts of energy which are >drawn from the void. Something futuristic and Jetson-like. Watts...Jetsons >... > >How about: the "Watson"? The least we could do is embarrass him a bit since >he's responsible for starting this whole SMOT mess. > >;) > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 00:34:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:28:20 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Estimate of Eddy Losses in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"gRJjo.0.Fj3.oWyap"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7806 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com >Barry - > > > P_channel_eddy ~ 0.02 * 0.01 * 0.01 * 0.001 / 2*10^-8 > > > > ~ 0.1 Watts. > >Wow, if those figures are right, we *really* ought to find ourselves some >nice non-conductive channel if we want to observe an "OU" effect and see >what changes our engineering and modification efforts are doing to that >part of the system. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI There may be some opposing value to offset the cost of the induced currents. It seems like a possibility the currents induced in the track and ball may generate foward motion on the ball. It is acting like a combined rail gun and homopolar. In addition, electrons in the rotating ball should generate lift at the top of the ball, which has the highest forward velocity, which might account for improved performance on a ramp vs a flat run. If this effect I imagine is real then it makes a difference as to w hether the N poles are on the right or left side of the track, from the ball's point of view! The N poles should be facing inwards on the left side of the track. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 00:37:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:36:16 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:34:24 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Estimate of Eddy Losses in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"U83462.0.165.mbyap"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7807 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 1:09 AM 6/3/97, Steve Ekwall wrote: [snip] >I've run off and started my "HIGH-SPEED RMOD" ... never good at >the above math that got us (smotter's) here, but are you saying with no >vaccuum assist or extremely well balanced system .. I'm 'Dead in the >water before I finish? (ugh).. > > >se >------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ >-=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 If you are using non-conductive ceramic magnets, and ferrite slugs for the armature, and no conductive metal parts, you should be perfectly OK with regard to eddy currents. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 00:44:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:44:25 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 03:43:32 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: Re: Bearden Questions To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"YG5EK3.0.kJ5.Ojyap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3609 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id AAA13020 This is a responce to the responces of Zack Widup Bob Shannon ---------------------------------------------------- Zack Widup wrote: >You should also read his papers "New Tesla Electromagnetics", "Toward >A New Electromagnetics Part III: Clarifying The Vector Principle", >"Toward A New Electromagnetics Part IV: Vectors And Mechanisms >Clarified". These are all available from the Tesla Book Company >If you really want to understand what Bearden is getting at, it also >helps to read "The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by >Hugh Everitt, GEOMETRODYNAMICS by John Archibald Wheeler, various papers >by Timothy Boyer, Hal Puthoff, the 1903 papers by Edmund Whittaker, and >the works of Ilya Prigogine on non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. Thanks for the references. I will have to do a lot more reading after dealing with responces to my post. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Shannon wrote: >I highly reccomend the Towards a New Electromagnetics series, which >includes a number ot directly testable claims. Mr. Beardens later >works, including "The Final Secret..." documents show a number of >significant differances from his earlier (and better!) works. >Many followers of Mr. Beardens work feel that his later writings contain >a good deal of deliberate misinformation, and are at times at odds with >his earlier works. Thanks for the insight. It is helpfull to know which documents are more important and more informative. >[splice] >One important point on Bearden's 'Final Secrets' document: >If you search through this material, you will find what appears to be an >endorsement of a claimed 'over unity' design known as the MRA (Magnetic >Resonance Amplifier). >What is significant here, is that the MRA design was proven NOT to be >over unity well before the publication of Mr. Bearden's article. >Despite having been proven to be well below 100% efficient, the MRA >design took far longer to loose the attention it had gained some years >back. >So why was a device already known not to show over unity operation >included in Mr. Bearden's work? >Deliberate misinformation. Bearden had already seen a demo of the MRA, >and knew better when "The Final Secret.." was released. You have offered some fairly powerfull evedence in support of your conclusion. I see you know your way arround Bearden's work quite well. What are the biggest barriers to proceeding with the design of a working free energy device (not just a detector) based on his earlier theories? (Never mind the cost. I am only addressing the issue of design at this time. I am not saying that money is not a problem. I just don't think it would be fruitfull to allow money to be the focus of discussion at this time.) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 00:44:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:44:40 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 03:43:44 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: Re: Bedini Questions To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"HXpfi.0.nK5.djyap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3610 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id AAA13030 This is a responce to the responces of Michael C Slivinski Evan Soule' Zack Widup Bob Shannon ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael C Slivinski wrote: >instead of an inductor, what if we are more concerned about the voltage >rather than current, and the caps store and discharge back into the >battery. and also if the output voltage from the caps is discharged into >another set of caps that can be discharged into an inductor to charge >another set of batteries. That is too many conversions. Every time you discharge one thing into another, you loose energy. >The reason I am thinking this way is I wonder when using inductors as a >charging/discharging or storage device that the sudden current rush >causes the internal restistance of the battery to increase and cause >some heat or some other energy loss. Where using the cap will allow the >current to build up slowly and thus less internal restance in the >battery. >I have thought of the battery as a voltage providing field, and charging >caps rather than a current source charging up the coil with energy. >It might not be free energy or over unity but... would it be a more >effcient use of the energy source (battery). You seem to be mistaken on a few points. Efficient energy conversion requires connecting a device with voltage-type-of-energy-storage (such as a battery or capacitor) to a device with current-type-of-energy-storage (such as an inductor). Let's look at what happens when you connect a 1uF capacitor at 10V to a 1uF capacitor at 0V. The two capacitors are C1 and C2, having a voltage of V1 and V2, and having a charge of Q1 and Q2, and having an energy storage of E1 and E2. We start with: C1 = 1uF C2 = 1uF V1 = 10V V2 = 0V Q = C * V Q1 = 1uF * 10V = 10 micro-coulumb Q2 = 0 E = (1/2) * C * V * V E1 = (1/2) * 1uF * 10V * 10V = 50 micro-joule E2 = 0 Qtotal = Q1 + Q2 = 10 micro-coulumb Etotal = E1 + E2 = 50 micro-joule After a breif surge of current, the total charge (Qtotal) will be unchanged, so Qtotal = 10 micro-coulumb Q1 + Q2 = 10 micro-coulumb (V1*C1) + (V2*C2) = 10 micro-coulumb (V1 * 1uF) + (V2 * 1uF) = 10 micro-coulumb And we also know that the two voltage must be equal, so V2 = V1 (V1 * 1uF) + (V1 * 1uF) = 10 micro-coulumb 2 * (V1 * 1uF) = 10 micro-coulumb (V1 * 1uF) = 5 micro-coulumb V1 = 5 micro-coulumb / 1uF = 5V V2 = V1 = 5V Now we can compute the energy as E = (1/2) * C * V * V E1 = (1/2) * 1uF * 5V * 5V = 12.5 micro-joule E2 = (1/2) * 1uF * 5V * 5V = 12.5 micro-joule Etotal = E1 + E2 = 25 micro-joule So the total energy (Etotal) has been cut in half. It went from 50 to 25 micro-joules. Where did the energy go? It got dissipated in the internal resistance of the capacitors. No matter how low the resistance is, you will still loose the same amount of en ergy when doing this experiment. The only difference is that the energy loss will be finished sooner when using capacitors with a lower resistance. Therefore, it is not very efficient. When using capacitors with a lower resistance, you get a larger current spike which lasts a shorter period of time. However, if you connect a voltage-type-of-energy-storage device to a current-type-of-energy-storage device, the energy can flow in a controlled faction from one device to another without running into a rule like the one I described above where you are doo med to loose half the energy no matter how low the resistance is. Of course, the current may be high because it must be high enough to produce the desired free energy effects in the battery. This may cause some heating in the battery, but I have found it is not a problem so far because the resitance of the battery is qu ite low at high frequencies. The problem would be much worse if I tried switching arround capacitors to the battery. --------------------------------------------------------- Evan Soule' wrote: >The point of the above is that Bedini "learned" of how to construct such >a device from Mr. Bearden. Mr. Bearden in turn "learned" how to build >such a device from two gentlemen (friends of Bearden) whom he sent from >Huntsville, Alabama to visit Joseph Newman and see an working prototype >in the early months of 1984 -- we have a photograph of their visit with >Joseph Newman. These two gentleman reported back to Mr. Bearden as to >how Joseph Newman's machine operated. It's easy to see why Bedini >wasn't interested in patenting the invention: it wasn't his to patent >in the first place. Joseph Newman had originally filed a patent >application five years earlier (before 1984). >Moreover, these "anerergy particles" --- gyroscopic particles --- >specifically originate from the magnetic fields generated in the coil and >magnet rotor of his Motor/Generators. Joseph Newman has described this >mechanical process in great detail. >In the final analysis, if one wants to understand the essence of this >technology, I would sincerely recommend that one study the _innovator_ of >this technology: Joseph Newman .... not J. Bedini. I have also read "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman" first edition. Bedini described two devices, one with moving parts and one with no moving parts. The device which I am refering to is the one with no moving parts, just batteries. It is substantialy different from the device described by Newman, and yet it is quite posi ble that they both work on the same priciple, if that priciple could be defined clearly enough. I am unable to understand Bearden's explanations (yet). I don't want to become another Newman crittic at this time, so I won't try to explain why his book did not enable me to design a Newman motor. I have seen enough of the archives to know that it would not be taken quietly. It sounds like you may be refering to some aspect of Newmans theory that I am not familiar with. Does Newman beleive that free energy can be produced in the same way as Bedini, using only batteries and transistors and diodes (no coils, and no moving parts )? If so, what is the connection between Newman's theory and such a circuit? By the way, does Newman's motor work just as efficiently from a DC power supply (with a big capacitor) as it does from a battery? If not, why not? As far as I can tell from Newman's theory, all the magic is in coil (not the battery), so we should be able to play all the normal tricks (like replacing a battery with a DC power supply) outside of the coil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Zack Widup wrote: >Please read Bearden's papers in detail. The anenergy he describes is >not gyroscopic but rather random in nature ... he credits the theory in >part to Timothy Boyer and Hal Puthoff, and in part to Ilya Prigogine >(Nobel-prize winner for his work in non-equilibrium statistical >mechanics). The basic particles are random. Gyroscopic particles are >simply larger accumulations of this more fundamental randomity. >Bearden's paper, "Toward A New Electromagnetics Part IV - Vectors And >Mechanisms Clarified" goes into this theory in much more detail. It >also explains what is supposed to happen with the Brandt-Tesla Switch. Are those two the same paper you are talking about? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Shannon wrote: >At times I have posted my understandings of Mr. Benini's responses over >this list server, when his devices were a topic of discussion here. You >might look through the freenrg-l archives for this information. I am still trying to read through mass quantities on megabytes of archives of this list, which months are you refering to? >Jean-Louis has posted his test results on his attempts at reproducing >some of Mr. Bedini's devices, including pictures of oscilloscope >readings, etc. It's interesting to compare these with the data taken >from John's web page, or with Mr. Bedini's personal descriptions of >these devices. Jean-Louis posted on this list or posted on a web page somewhere? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 01:39:57 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 01:40:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Bedini questions Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 01:39:08 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"0YJrl1.0.xj4.dXzap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3611 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Folks, Ralph Griffin's comments on the Bedini devices bring up a question that has puzzled me for some time: So the total energy (Etotal) has been cut in half. It went from 50 to 25 micro-joules. Where did the energy go? It got dissipated in the internal resistance of the capacitors. No matter how low the resistance is, you will still loose the same amount of en ergy when doing this experiment. The only difference is that the energy loss will be finished sooner when using capacitors with a lower resistance. Is this loss in the caps really from their internal resistance? I was under the impression that capacitive energy storage was in itself lossless..and it seems odd that the metal resistance would always reduce the energy by half. What if the caps were made of superconducting material with a vacuum gap? What happens then? It seems that with high voltage capacitors and a high switching speed enormous amounts of power could be made to "go away" with this sort of circuit, without a commensurate level of heat generation. Irving Gottlieb in "Power Supplies, Switching Regulators, Inverters, And Converters", p.459 says in reference to this situation: "You must, of course, attribute the energy deficit to losses. Interestingly, the energy equation doesn't seem to concerned whether the capacitors are charged and discharged through a Milohm or a Megohm. Indeed, it turns out that the presence of series resistance only affects the time it requires to charge and discharge the capacitors. In every situation involving equal-valued capacitors, 50% of the inital energy will be lost when the capacitors are swit ched in parallel. Nature as reflected by the energy equation seems to know that half the initial energy will be lost via I2R heat, sound, light, and RF radiation. Then, too, you can postulate dielectric leakage and dielectric hysteresis. Admittedly, th is is not an easy concept to grasp: it might be easier to accept the phenomenon on a simple mathematical basis-- things that happen when numbers are halved, doubled, and squared..." Does this sound as weak to anyone else as it does to me? Jumping ahead prematurely as I am wont to do, wouldn't a circuit consisting of several caps switching back and forth like this represent an energy sink that would draw a current, a sort of electrical black hole? In a paper by Oliver Nicholson called, I think, "The Later Inventions Of Nikola Tesla", he says that Tesla said that such a sink would operate to draw energy out the environment for power. He used the analogy of a lake as energy at equilibrium, or lowest potential. If a LOWER potential is created artificially at the bottom of the lake, the water in the lake begins to flow toward it and can be used to drive a turbine. It's been a while since I read this article, so I may have the details wrong, but the id ea is there. What do y'all think? Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 01:53:07 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 01:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 18:20:43 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Rollaway Resent-Message-ID: <"gX7Kq3.0._25.-jzap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3612 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, The GOAL at present is to : 1) Achieve a same height, level rollaway. THEN 2) Achieve a 2mm higher exit, level rollaway. In my experience, with the present SMOT ramp design, this takes about a 17-18mm drop using a "S" shaped exit. The drop distance will vary depending on the config of your exit magnets and ball size. This drop height can be achieved with TWO of my ramps. I have confirmed this today. It doesn't matter HOW many ramps it takes to achieve a rollaway, but to achieve a rollaway is the goal to work to. You may be able to get a rollaway with one ramp or need linked ramps. Forget about dropping to a desk, its an EQUAL HEIGHT, LEVEL rollaway that you need to achieve. THEN get a 2mm higher rollaway exit and the rollaround "N" gauge track will work. Hope this helps, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 02:35:17 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 02:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 19:02:09 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT RAMP Linking to Increase Drop Height and Get a Rollaway Resent-Message-ID: <"VTD8o2.0.Vn5.fL-ap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3613 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, There are two methods to increase final drop height by ramp linking : 1) Mount the linked ramps on a base board and slowly lift the exit end until you get a same height level rollaway. Can be done with 2 or 3 linked ramps. With a 2mm lift at the exit end of the ramp board you would have : Start at 0mm, climb to 13mm drop to 1mm, Start at 1mm, climb to 14mm drop to 0mm With a 4mm lift at the exit end of the ramp board you would have : Start at 0mm, climb to 14mm drop to 2mm, Start at 2mm, climb to 16mm drop to 0mm With a 6mm lift at the exit end of the ramp board you would have : Start at 0mm, climb to 15mm drop to 3mm, Start at 3mm, climb to 18mm drop to 0mm (and rollaway!) 2) Vary the drop on each linked ramp by lifting each ramp relative to the last ramp. This method will need 3 linked ramps. With a 1mm lift on the second ramp and a 2mm lift on the third ramp you would have : Start at 0mm, climb to 12mm drop to 1mm, Start at 1mm, climb to 13mm drop to 2mm Start at 2mm, climb to 14mm drop to 0mm. With a 2mm lift on the second ramp and a 4mm lift on the third ramp you would have : Start at 0mm, climb to 12mm drop to 2mm, Start at 2mm, climb to 14mm drop to 4mm Start at 4mm, climb to 16mm drop to 6mm. With a 3mm lift on the second ramp and a 6mm lift on the third ramp you would have : Start at 0mm, climb to 12mm drop to 3mm, Start at 3mm, climb to 15mm drop to 6mm Start at 6mm, climb to 18mm drop to 0mm. (and rollaway!) Which ever method you choose, remember your goal to to achieve a SAME HEIGHT, LEVEL rollaway of the ball. THEN go for a 2mm higher exit. THEN use the "N" guage track rollaround system to close the loop. Over to you, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 02:39:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 02:39:02 -0700 X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 02:39:53 -0700 To: Rick Monteverde , vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: SMOT AND (AntiG correlation and Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"RtkiP3.0.ND7.rO-ap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3614 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thank you for the offer. I've just noticed it. I have access to bismuth powder in local school. I am going to borrow some and try your suggestion. What proportion of Iron to bismuth powder do you suggest ? At 07:10 PM 6/1/97 -1000, you wrote: >Mike - > > > Hello ALL, Regarding msg below regarding > > bismuth and SMOT experiment. I was > > wondering when someone mentioned using > > the glass marble ball filled ferrous oxdid or > > iron powder, not sure but adding bismuth to > > it, I wonder if it would manifest any unusual > > anomolies like greater velocity up the > > ramp... > >Epitaxy has the powder filled glass spheres, I have some powdered bismuth. >I offered to send Epitaxy some, but he didn't respond. Might not have seen >it, or thought I was joking. I might try it myself, with an epoxy molded >ball with powder loaded in when I get time. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 06:09:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 06:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 19:39:51 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: N gauge loop References: <3.0.32.19970602155340.00b198b0@mail.localaccess.com> <33936654.209A@southconn.com> <339375E8.2D67@ix.netcom.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"USGMS.0.mu1.QT1bp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3617 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Dave DeLeo wrote: > > I am trying to close the loop using N gauge model railroad track as greg > had suggested earlier today. I have an oval with 9 3/4" radius loops > (the tightest turn I could get in N gauge)and a straight piece of track > through the ramps rather than U channel (much smoother and easier to > work with). At the end of the ramp the track is nothched and bent down > at an angle to allow it to release while still maintaining some forward > momentum. (sort of like Greg's S cut in the U channel) > > I am using arrays of Radio Shack magnets 5 long by 3 wide with a steel > backing strip for one ramp, and for the other a 4X3 magnet arrays w/ > steel strip (radio shack ran out of magnets, I have to get more tomorrow > and lengthen that array to match the first one). I get about 1cm lift > on a 16mm ball. Without magnets a ball released from the top of one > ramp will start to climb the next ramp by itself. But the problem > arises when I put in the magnets. The ball climbs the first ramp w/ no > problem, but when it is released there is enough drawback to slow the > ball down preventing it from reaching the start of the next ramp.(it > only gets about halfway around the top half of the curve I have spent > several hours playing with the adjustments but haven't had any luck. > > I've attached a quick sketch of what my loop looks like. > > If anyone has any suggestions I would appreciate them. > > Thanks in advance, > Dave DeLeo Hi Dave, I suggest you use the flexible "N" gauge track. Fewer joint, better for a low energy return system. Ths smaller the losses in the return track, the less the lift height required on the ramps. My return track will work quite well with a lift of only 1.5 mm. I could probably get down to 1mm with a rebuild. Work on the return track first. Try to get as small as possible lift at the top end. Even 0.5mm can divide success / failure' Then go for a clean rollaway on the ramps and you are there! Tomorrow I will release more adjustment hints. Your answer should be in there. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 06:08:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 06:07:47 -0700 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 19:54:10 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Still Least! (SMOT) References: <199706030057.TAA21297@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"b3Ae01.0.RW3.YS1bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3616 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > We spent all day trying to get SMOT action to occur at EarthTech. > > We cut a very nice "S" exit on ramp #1 with our milling machine and, yes, > that does preserve much of the ball's kinetic energy when it goes to the > next ramp. > > After MUCH fiddling with things, we did succeed in linking two ramps > together and achieving a table-top roll out....but that is 12mm BELOW the > ball's starting height! > > As a simple comparison, we inclined a straight piece of U-channel such that > one end was 12mm higher than the other end....no magnets anywhere. The ball > traverses this "device" and roars off the end with MUCH greater velocity > than it does when exiting the two-ramp SMOT. Same vertical drop in both cases. > > Clearly we are not replicating Greg's claims. We are not complaining, just > reporting. All the ramps I have ever played, exhibit draw back. A rollaway out of 100mm requires about 0.1mm or less drop under normal conditions. Rollaways, like ramp linking, its touchy stuff, but after some time it's not so difficult. > Possibly our "short" magnets are the cause. I ordered some magnets that are > precisely the same height as Greg's today. > > Scott Little Hi Scott, Good to see you are moving ahead. Forget the drop to the table. Thats not where its at. Use a equal height exit rail. Then work to increase the final drop height until you get a rollaway. Remember to use a curved entry to the level exit rail to prese rve as much KE as possible. I find that you need around 1.5 ball diameters drop height to achieve a rollaway. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 06:09:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 06:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 20:01:31 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: SAM GORDON CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hello Greg, Here is an idea. References: <199706021801.OAA08191@ns.bluegrass.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"5-hUB3.0.sv1.jT1bp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3618 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com SAM GORDON wrote: > > Hello Greg, I know you must be neck high with email at the moment so I > shall be brief. Attached is a pic of a rotory type motor in thought. It may > not be worth > looking at or not, I think that by ether adding more armature sections with > the mag accelerators of each section out of phase one should be able to get > some noticeable power > out of it. I'd love to build it, however as you can see it is a bit more > complex than the smot. And the wife would KILL me if i spent money building > this thing. I found the mags for this in a C & H mail order mag part number > mag9700. Hope this is helpful. > > C & H sales co. > 2176 East Colorado Blvd. > Pasadena, CA 91107 > > phone 1-800-325-9465 Hi Sam, I believe the SMOT idea currently requires gravity to function. Thanks for the magnet info, will post to the group. Best regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 17:24:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:19:10 -0400 From: Ben Tammetta Reply-To: ben@clubelite.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Public Online FE database Resent-Message-ID: <"IU-1g.0.7v4.YGsap"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3598 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Check it out!! A publically maintained Online Free Energy experimental database http://www.clubelite.com/fe/ Hello Fred, You wrote: >Is it OK to leave concrete SUGGESTIONS for >experiments or reports of experimental anomalies from the literature >here, or do you want to >confine this strictly to ongoing experiments? Any experiment that demonstrates an anomaly. This should be an archive of what does and does not work, So that others don't waste time on devices that don't work... Present the details and let the audience decide for themselves. Any experiment worth performing should be given a chance here Right now I'd suggest putting any experiment you know of or are working on... to populate the site and to build traffic to the site... If others see lots of entries they may be more inclined to enter entries themselves. Thanks ben@clubelite.com Check it out!! A publically maintained Online Free Energy experimental database http://www.clubelite.com/fe/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 05:37:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 05:31:40 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 20:27:38 +0800 (SGT) X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mpower Subject: CFV: Watson as a unit of energy Resent-Message-ID: <"Bdnia.0.PQ2.hw0bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7812 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com >Rick Monteverde posted the following (edited for brevity) at 20:46 1997.06.02 -1000: >>Robert - >> >> > So I see Greg's device (and it's predecessors) as consistant with >> > current physics... >> >>Maybe so. But perhaps we need a new term for Watts of energy which are >>drawn from the void. Something futuristic and Jetson-like. Watts...Jetsons >>... >> >>How about: the "Watson"? The least we could do is embarrass him a bit since >>he's responsible for starting this whole SMOT mess. >> >>- Rick Monteverde >>Honolulu, HI >> > >Good choice: "Watson" it is ! > >BTW: Is it a wise idea to distinguish between the "conventional" and ZPE >power units? ++++++++++++ Used O-U device salesmen (in the near future) will love us for giving them a way to pitch used SMOT-based generators. "This baby here was used only by an old -grandad nerd. Why, this old fart only ever used it to power his old computer (only on Sundays, mind you). It's still capable of 2000 Watsons at full torque..." etc. "This 1998 CryoFusion Model 6 still pulls a respectable 3.2 Watson/expense ratio" Ad nauseam... +++++++++++++ But, nevertheless, I believe we need this one on two counts: 1) We need to distinguish between watts in (expense/'seeding' or whathaveyou..) watts out (up to 100% of watts in, I suppose) and Watsons which would be a starting point for analyzing and quantifying the efficiency of the devices. 2) and also, go figure how the skeptopaths will react when they discover we've given a name to something they say can't exist - it would be a sort of P.R. coup. Imagine someone like Hairy Conover trying to explain that Watson's can't exist to someone from National Enquirer. . I move to vote. 1 Watson = 1 vagrant watt (lacking visible means of source) ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 12:24:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:24:28 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 21:33:11 +0800 (SGT) X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Mpower Subject: charge density (wasRe: Re: Bedini Questions) Resent-Message-ID: <"tQ_W02.0.aB.hz6bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3626 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph E Griffin posted the following (edited for brevity) at 03:43 1997.06.03 -0400: >This is a responce to the responces of > >Michael C Slivinski >Evan Soule' >Zack Widup >Bob Shannon > >---------------------------------------------------------- > >Michael C Slivinski wrote: > >Let's look at what happens when you connect a 1uF capacitor at 10V to a 1uF >capacitor at 0V. The two capacitors are C1 and C2, having a voltage of V1 >and V2, and having a charge of Q1 and Q2, and having an energy storage of >E1 and E2. We start with: > >C1 = 1uF C2 = 1uF V1 = 10V V2 = 0V Q = C * V >Q1 = 1uF * 10V = 10 micro-coulumb Q2 = 0 >E = (1/2) * C * V * V >E1 = (1/2) * 1uF * 10V * 10V = 50 micro-joule >E2 = 0 > >Qtotal = Q1 + Q2 = 10 micro-coulumb Etotal = E1 + E2 = 50 micro-joule > >After a breif surge of current, the total charge (Qtotal) will be >unchanged, so > >Qtotal = 10 micro-coulumb Q1 + Q2 = 10 micro-coulumb >(V1*C1) + (V2*C2) = 10 micro-coulumb >(V1 * 1uF) + (V2 * 1uF) = 10 micro-coulumb > >And we also know that the two voltage must be equal, so > >V2 = V1 >(V1 * 1uF) + (V1 * 1uF) = 10 micro-coulumb >2 * (V1 * 1uF) = 10 micro-coulumb >(V1 * 1uF) = 5 micro-coulumb >V1 = 5 micro-coulumb / 1uF = 5V V2 = V1 = 5V > >Now we can compute the energy as > >E = (1/2) * C * V * V >E1 = (1/2) * 1uF * 5V * 5V = 12.5 micro-joule >E2 = (1/2) * 1uF * 5V * 5V = 12.5 micro-joule >Etotal = E1 + E2 = 25 micro-joule > >So the total energy (Etotal) has been cut in half. It went from 50 to 25 >micro-joules. Where did the energy go? > It got dissipated in the internal resistance of the capacitors. --- XXXXXXXXX correct answer to wrong question XXXXXXXXXX energy is a function of charge density: you just connected an empty room to a full one the energy lost was dissipated across the internal resistance, but the actual point is you simply halved the charge density, said charge density being the basis for the total energy in the system. > ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 01:59:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:57:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:24:11 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Chevron arrnagement Resent-Message-ID: <"Iq0Ku1.0.2o3.GuIbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7881 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Terry "Randy Goose-alini" Blanton wrote: > Hmmm...I wonder if you can run trains that way. Might not be such a "" someday if this stuff pans out. Even if it is directly unlinkable as a round trip, hey - just *getting there* is half the fun, right? Anyone have any idea where a guy could acquire a small supply of ferrite powder? My driveway needs repaving... no, really - I want to try casting some epoxy-ferrite spheres. I can take a silicone mold of a nice smooth bearing, see how that works. I want to explore effects in the weaker fields, but the slightly magnetized balls make that impossible. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 02:01:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:59:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:33:49 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 Resent-Message-ID: <"mv0cf2.0.Ip3.SvIbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7882 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace - > However, your above diagram is using the Rogue > SMOT chevron magnetic arrays, which, if you use > Hamdi's highly overlapped version of them, are > almost identical to the Cunningham device disks - > with one key exception: the rotating disk with > ferrite rods is superfluous. Maybe, but be careful. This whole thing started over ferromagnets moving through magnetic fields, and that removes them from the scene. Dance with the one who brung ya', you know? I wanted to keep them around, thinking that perhaps they are a key part of the magic, and are literally the missing *link* - that is, the thing that caused fields to bury their heads in the ferromagnetic sands (field "killing") long enough for you to *link* successfully with net energy left over while moving from one converging gradient to the next one. Otherwise, you might have things just cog to a stop. Heck, that's probably what will happen anyway, but any of these things seem worth trying. They're cheap and simple, at least. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 07:29:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 07:28:47 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:30:56 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re Tesla: Looking for Answers Resent-Message-ID: <"zsodC2.0.vG6.Ne2bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3619 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com snip >In a paper by Oliver Nicholson called, I think, "The Later Inventions Of >Nikola Tesla", he says that Tesla said that such a sink would operate to >draw energy out the environment for power. He used the analogy of a lake snip-- > Fred Nikola Tesla stated the following on May 12, 1938: "During the succeeding two years [1893 and 1894] of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very so on. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculation and false conceptions, as that of curved space . . . . "Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and dispenses with space curvature. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena. "My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no ene rgy in matter other than that received from the environment. "On my 79th birthday I made a brief reference to it, but its meaning and significance have become clearer to me since then. It applies rigorously to molecules and atoms as well as to the largest heavenly bodies, and to all matter in the universe in any p hase of its existence from its very formation to its ultimate disintegration." Margaret Cheney wrote: "Tesla's thoughts in later life were tending more and more toward a unifying physical theory. He believed that all matter came from a primary substance, the luminiferous ether....." >From Hunt and Draper: "And then Tesla went on to reveal his most recent dream of an entire new source of power. He maintained that he was working on two things based on pure mathematics which Professor Einstein had also attempted to explain, but Tesla boasted that his explana tions were not so involved as Einstein's, albeit they concerned a totally new source of power. Tesla said: "'The conception, the idea when it first burst upon me was a tremendous shock. I can only say at this time that it will come from an entirely new and unsuspected source and will be for all practical purposes constant day and night. The apparatus for capturing the energy and transforming it will partake of both mechanical and electr ical features. At first the cost may be found to be too high, but this obstacle will be overcome. The installation will be indestructible and will continue to function for any length of time without additional expenditures. It has nothing to do with at omic energy. There is no such energy in the sense usually meant." He also stated, "With my currents, using pressures as high as 15 million volts, the highest ever used, I have split atoms but no energy was released....'" Cheney goes on to write: "He (Tesla) said of this new SOURCE of power that it would throw light upon many puzzling phenomena of the cosmos. And in another enigmatic comment that puzzles Tesla scholars down to the present day, he said it might prove of great industrial value 'par ticularly in creating a new and virtually unlimited market for steel.'" "Questioned further, Tesla would only say that .... the apparatus for manufacturing this energy and transforming it would be of ideal simplicity with both mechanical and electrical features. Tesla said the preliminary cost might be thought too high, but this would be overcome, for the installation would be both permanent and indestructible." __________________________________ Some questions which come to my mind in reading the above are: 1) What was Tesla's "Unifying Physical Theory"? 2) What was Tesla's "Dynamic Theory of Gravity"? 3) What was the explicit nature of Tesla's "ether" concept? 4) What does Tesla mean when he says (with respect to atomic energy): "There is no such energy in the sense _usually_ meant."? In what "other sense" would he describe such energy? 5) What was Tesla's "totally new source of power" with "both mechanical and electrical features"? 6) What was the nature of this "simplicity" with respect to this "apparatus for manufacturing this energy and transforming it"? 7) What did Tesla mean when he stated that the installation of the "totally new source of power" would be "both _permanent_ and _indestructible_."? Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "The day when we shall know exactly what electricity is, will chronicle an event probably greater than any other recorded in the human race." --- NIKOLA TESLA X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 09:08:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 08:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 08:56:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"CHXan1.0.Js6.Ex3bp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7818 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 07:02 PM 6/2/97 -0400, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >Rick Monteverde wrote: >> >> Frank - >> >> I think we need to be very careful, these things are very interesting and >> even compelling, but until we've got the thing spinning for hours on our >> workbenches, we might not be any closer than anyone else ever was. They've >> never worked before, AFAIK. >> > >I agree Rick! This evening I set up one of your sawtooth rogues with >12 magnets which I think are identical to yours. (Radio Shack?) >I had 6 magnets on each side of my 12 mm Al rail and my 1.5 inch steel >ball. The magnets were "piggy-back" with about 1/4 inch overlap. >With the rail dead level I noticed the following: >(Note, this was a tight packing with the magnets in contact and the >inside corner of the magnets clearing the ball only by about 1/8 inch.) > > 1. The ball would enter from a dead stop and move through 5 > null points (blue holes?). > 2. The ball would NOT exit but bounced off the sixth null and > oscillated a while - finally captured in one of the nulls. > 3. The BALL WOULD NOT START FROM AN INTERIOR NULL POINT! > If I slowly pushed it past a null point, it would settle > into the next one. > 4. So, the ball DID traverse to the end IF started in the fringe > field at EITHER END of the array. (from a stop!) How did you arrange your sawtooth magnets, like a "V" (see A below) or a lamba (see B below)? I tried both and got the "V" design to work, as I wrote to Rick. The ball travel from left to right. /////// \\\\\\\\ A ===o====> worked B ====o====> Didn't work \\\\\\\ //////// >I get the feeling that if I had a big circle of these sawtooth >configured magnets that THE BALL WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO TRAVERSE. > >Linkers of SMOT ramps might try to start the balls from an INTERIOR >ramp. It would be interesting to know if the ball would start from such >a point! Of course, if an elevation gain is confirmed, I can't see >why a roll-a-round would not close the loop. BUT, IT STILL DRIVES ME >CRAZY!! In SMOT, I found (and probably others) that the ball will not start from the interior of the arrays. It needs to be sucked into the field. The same occurrs with diagram B above but would not traverse more than 5 magnets in the array. But with diagram A, the ball only needs to be in the array to start and would not start if outside the field. This is big difference and unique that the ball can start anywhere in the array field and will always travel toward the end (toward the right in A diagram). > >I agree that it is MOST IMPORTANT to try to replicate Greg's results. >If he's right, then we need to REMODEL physics! > >Frank Stenger Hi Frank, If you have the time you might want to try the V array. I did it by flipping the array over and putting the ball inside the field to start it moving. I hope this helps. This also gave me a break from my SMOT unit. In the linking of two ramps I need Blue tack or something to hold the arrays in place and for adjustments. I'm still having problems in the two ramp mag arrays physically linking and need to fasten them so they don't interfer with each other. It is challenging though. :) Best Regards, Michael Randall X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 15:17:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:15:43 -0700 From: mindtech@om.com.au Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 07:59:38 +1000 X-Sender: mindtech@om.com.au To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini Questions Resent-Message-ID: <"M-F401.0.G63.EOqap"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3594 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Then actually conduct experiments to test the ideas presented in the >early Bearden material. You may be quite supprised to find that quite a >bit of it actually works as claimed. There are some 'how to' >construction projects on Bill's web site to get you started along these >lines. > >Bob Shannon > If we can assume you have done this, Bob, please tell us, aside from your own scalar detector, which ones worked (best) for you. What was the experimental setup and how were the results monitored? Can you provide enough detail for it to be replicated by a ny member of this group? Let's not keep doing the same silly things over and over. Peter Nielsen X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 09:53:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: 03 Jun 97 12:45:12 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: (Lack of) Progress Resent-Message-ID: <"DwXbz1.0.-F1.kh4bp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7819 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com A brief break from SMOTting, the thing is very fiddly. Truth is that if anything I'm going backwards today - probably because Soo is much better at adjusting ramps than I am, and she's away. A few comments. Thanks to Greg for the S-exit reminder. I must say I find it easier to file them myself than try to grind the things - and filing them isn't easy either. I examined my ball-catch ball carefully, and found it was not of the same quality as real bearing balls (it has a lumpy finish) so I got a few real ones in the same size. The ball-catch one is unmagnetiseable, but it is possible to make the 'real' ones very slightly magnetised by bouncing them up and down for quite a while on some NdFeB magnets. It takes a lot of effort, and you do need very powerful magnets to affect the m. I can't see this as a significant factor. Eddy currents - Barry's estimation is impressive, I would guess it to be on the high side, based on the way a ball will oscillate up and down a ramp before it settles. However, that oscillation is visibly being damped, and I wish I had glazed ferrite ba lls. Eddy currents very likely *are* the dominant loss, though. Heating effects always seem tiny compared with mechanical ones, but they are very 'energy draining' - think of a watt of sound compared with a watt of heat. Anyway, I think we all have to agree that if the SMOT sends a steel ball around a full circuit a few times, then something very peculiar is happening. I still find I'm puzzled by the claim that the simulation done to all the standard rules implies O-U. Is this some breaking of symmetry, or what the hell does it imply? ZPF? If so, why? Or do the rules (which supposedly stick to the C of E principle) permit it? Is this not a paradox? Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 09:48:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:47:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:47:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: Re: Estimate of Eddy Losses in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"E6rkn1.0.Py.mg4bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3620 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > >BTW: I did managed to get 4 NDFeB SMOT ramps linked reliably with great >effort, but did not close the loop. The "leakage" attraction from the >powerful NdFeB magnets outside SMOT ramp is very strong and difficult to >deal with, forcing me to increase the track length which in turn increases >friction losses because now the ball has to travel so far to get away form >the "leakage" attraction. > This gives me an idea. Maybe you can use this leakage attraction to your advantage. If the radius on the return track which is closest to the entry of the ramps was smaller than the other radius, then you could get a bit of an angled pull which may overco me the extra friction. Assuming of course that it didn't get too close. Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /***********************************************************/ /* Anything said by me on this list that I have originated */ /* is in the public domain. PS There's no money in energy. */ /* - At least not after everybody owns an energy device! - */ /****** *****************************************************/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 11:25:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 11:20:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Peter King & Andrew Marks" To: Subject: SMOT kits Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:18:39 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"MGv6w3.0.eP4.h16bp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7821 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, Has the SMOT kit been tested by independent people yet, like Jean-Louis ? Are they available yet ? How many have you sold ? I want to buy a kit from you as I have been experimenting with various magnets and ramps but with only a small amount of success and I want to take a big jump forward by using something that has been already de-bugged. I have got a lift of 8mm using a 19mm ball bearing and 12 x 2cm ferrite boron magnets. I have found a source of the much better sintered antisotropic rare earth Neodynium Iron Boron magnets, but these are not cheap. The setup is very sensitive like you say and if is out by a fraction of a mm then the ball just hangs at the end of the ramp, even if you give a good push to start it rolling. Cheers. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 12:22:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:22:09 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:28:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re Tesla: Looking for Answers Resent-Message-ID: <"jC2HG.0.c2.Tx6bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3624 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Evan Soule wrote: big snip------------- > all matter in the universe in any phase of its existence from its very > formation to its ultimate disintegration." > bigger snip----------- > "Questioned further, Tesla would only say that .... the apparatus for > manufacturing this energy and transforming it would be of ideal simplicity > with both mechanical and electrical features. Tesla said the preliminary > cost might be thought too high, but this would be overcome, for the > installation would be both permanent and indestructible." ------------------ biggest snip > __________________________________ > > Some questions which come to my mind in reading the above are: snip-snip #1-6 of 'What's it all about....'snip-snip > 7) What did Tesla mean when he stated that the installation of the "totally > new source of power" would be "both _permanent_ and _indestructible_."? > > Evan Soule' Evan, From the 'Smoke' I've seen, umm, SMOT I've seen #7 is an easy one! :) It is both "Permanent" because it can "FLOAT" in its enviroment = NO WEAR, NO TEAR.. and "Indestructible" because there is NO Depletion of the System! (Except for the sic/tesla 'Ulti mate Disentigration') like the elusive neutrino decay. ------------ AND it IS as simple and observable as the SMOT1 demonstrates. Its There, I have 'seen' it (minds eye).. Tesla WAS RIGHT!! 'Floating' non-touching mechanical components will be as we see as the 'old version' of an atom.. electron spinning merrily around & around :) Not coming into contact with anything to 'wear it out' hence = permanent! The 'indestructible' part does have a dead - end though if you believe in a 'closed universe' however.... but, until then WE'VE got FIR E ummm -Blue Hole Power- umm Don't know what to call it, BUT WE'VE GOT IT BY IT's PERVERBIALS NOW! :) You guys can 'TAKE' all the electrical dreams of Tesla OUT of IT as you can manage.. It all reconverts 'back' to the ether anyway -Thank you!- Round & Round & Round we GO! Makes ones Mind as giddy as a school kids again doesn't it!! Inside a 'huge' round container lay the 'V' magnetic (NON-depleating) rails - with a non-touching 'floating' rotor. NOTE, gravity is NOT NEEDED for this! Imagine a huge 'Floating Rotor' (big as a Super-dome Roof top if you like) suspended in position by all the forces that are acting on it. (we've (vortex-l groupies) mentioned gravitional, K, Momentum, Magnetic Attractions/Repulsion, V,C & E..(maybe even some others we haven't even thought about yet), But there is this Huge Rotor, spinning merrily around & around & around :) happy to follow its forward path to the -Blue Holes- 'refreshing Null' +/- (to balance things out (everything *IS* conserved!)) EVERYBODY WINS TILL the END of TIME! (including the RMOD!) Forever & Ever, Amen! Is this going to help the Country's $ Deficit -or what?- ha ha We're Snowballing NOW!! "Thanks Greg!" It *IS* there! I too have 'seen it!' Build guys, Build! se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 14:12:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: mwm@aa.net Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:04:30 -0700 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 23:49:35 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re:Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 Resent-Message-ID: <"ODW6S2.0.1P5.SR8bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7831 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com No, I am not, but another friend of us is going hit the NAIL. Horace we are complementing us. I was not aware of this patent. The letter below is dated 4 days before I subscribed to vortex. And I found this letter now in my hard disk archived as vtx9703.txt a huge archive of 1282Kb. After reading the mail, may one can ask to Greg an interesting question. --------------34B42D48736 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <3327C524.3B7D@microtronics.com.au> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:43:08 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Forget Hamel's Spinner, Try This Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, Forget Hamel's Spinner. Check out Patent 4,443,776, David Cunningham, Rotary Magnet Device. It's a permanent magnet motor that looks like it should work. It produces a contiguous "B" field using permanent magnets (something I thought, until today, wasn 't possible). It even claims to rotate in the claim section. Construction is simple, but not easy to quickly duplicate. Lets see who can duplicate it first. Comments? -- Best Regards Greg Watson Consulting gwatson@microtronics.com.au Greg Watson Adelaide, S. Australia 61 8 8270 2737 Home/Office/Fax 61 18 833 461 Mobile --------------34B42D48736-- Regards, Handi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 13:13:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:51:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 -FLOAT IT!- Resent-Message-ID: <"6HNxF1.0.TJ.nH7bp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7826 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com For you guys going RMOD too,... On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Horace Heffner wrote: > > Hamdi hit the nail on the head. The Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 is a pair > of "Rogue SMOT" magnetic actuators laid out radially on the surface of two > wheels. See the similarity, Rogue SMOT: > > > /////// \\\\\\\\ > A ===o====> worked B ====o====> Didn't work > \\\\\\\ //////// > > > Cunningham shows: > > | > /////// Wheeel 1 > | > \\\\\\\ Wheel 2 > | > > or: > > | > /////// Wheeel 1 > | > /////// Wheel 2 > | > > If there is anything to the Cunningham patent, then there should be a > longitudinal force between the magnet arrays of the "Rogue SMOT". > > Of special interest to me is the prospect that the magnetic slabs can be > similarly laid out on the outer surface of a cylinder to make an armature, > and a similar arrangement made on an inward surface of a cylindrical > stator. It appears this arrangement would fall outside the Cunningham > patent. I don't know if some other similar patent has claimed that > configuration. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner Float the Axis with the same concepts and we have deleted gravity as a needed player.. (Gregs 'V' provides the direction and the -Blue-Hole- provides the 'Thrust' as it were! /////////// <========o=======> <--Floating axis' \\\\\\\\\\\ This deletes all mechanical frictions! No one said it would be 'easy', including Tesla, BUT IT IS SIMPLE :) se :) ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 13:28:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:24:36 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:22:46 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SMOT kits Resent-Message-ID: <"_2EyB2.0._H3.3s7bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7827 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 7:18 PM 6/3/97, Peter King & Andrew Marks wrote: >Hi Greg, > >Has the SMOT kit been tested by independent people yet, like Jean-Louis ? > >Are they available yet ? > >How many have you sold ? > >I want to buy a kit from you as I have been experimenting with various >magnets and ramps but with only a small amount of success and I want to >take a big jump forward by using something that has been already de-bugged. [snip] I am interested in a kit also, once there is independent confirmation of a closed loop. It seems like it would be very good if a number of people, especially those not presently having success, built from exactly the same materials. It is very good of y ou to offer a kit. Your kit doesn't appear to include the track though. Any chance you would offer a kit that includes the track, so we would all be using the same material? My only interest is in a closed loop system. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 13:39:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:30:55 -0700 Date: 03 Jun 97 16:23:47 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: , Vortex Subject: Re: Where do simulations imply O/U ?? Resent-Message-ID: <"kBIqM.0.7g3.zx7bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7829 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Robert, > Can you (or anyone) mention any references to exactly *where* > claims were made that "the simulation done to all the standard > rules implies O-U" ?? Greg may wish to amplify his previous comments, which are not so much specific claims as casual references go his design methods. For example, he has done the notorious "blue hole" magnetic flux simulations, and these in themselves make me twitch slightl y. Then he referred specifically to his RMOD 2, of which he said that the simulations were looking good. I don't see how or why he would be using non-standard simulations for mag fields, indeed there was some early discussion of which of the usual packa ges was most cost-effective. Now, I would not think that one package would simulate both magnetic and gravitational fields, but it is pretty clear that you can take gravity as a constant vector in these matters. Perhaps I've extrapolated Greg's comments too much, but he has been qui ck to correct errors and he's not commented on my interpretation of his methods. > Many people would very surprised if the *conventional* laws of > electromagnetism contained a loophole which allowed the camel of > non-conservation of energy to get its nose under the tent. I think that Martin Sevior is probably right when he says it looks as if the SMOT would be just another example of many previous erosions of the Principle. I too would be surprised at so flagrant an example, especially since anyone could have done this b ack in 1783, by buying some of Hannah Shaw's magnets. > HOWEVER: if it is actually possible to tap the ZPE as a hidden > energy reservior (to "re-inflate" the electron spins, as suggested > by Hal Puthoff, for instance), then this effect would almost > certainly show up as EXTRA TERM(s) which must be add ed to the > electromagnetic equations in their current form. Extra terms... Well, that would be nice. Neat and tidy, I'd like that. Thanks for your comments, Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 12:24:16 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:23:55 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:26:53 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: The Scientific Method/A Tangled Thread Resent-Message-ID: <"lLHP03.0.E6.Az6bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3625 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Evan, I responded to your private email off the list server. Now your >respond over the list? This is 'bad form' Evan. As I'm sure you are >aware, prolonged discussion of Mr. Newman's work raises objections on >this forum. I've posted my testing results, and I stand by them. I >have nothing more to add on the subject, and I have no wish to recover >this ground here. About 5 months ago you agreed to forward your testing procedures following a email conversation we had. I never received it. Dear Bob, "Bad form" no. Technical problem, yes. Thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that my reply was sent to you directly. I was wondering why you responded privately to me. Usually when I receive a post from someone on freenrg-l, I simply "hit" the reply button and the reply is auto-formatted for reply to the List. For some reason, in the case of _your_ posts, when I "hit" the reply button the new message is automatically p osted to _your_ private email address rather than to the full list. Unless I remember to go in and manually alter the address in your case, it will be sent directly to you. This is apparently what happened. >Evan Soule' wrote: > >> >I have made an effort to try to understand Mr. Newman's theory, going so >> >far as to spend some time with his writtings, but I'm afraid that I keep >> >getting back to issues where his theory fails to describe experimental >> >reality. (i.e. the two coil tests, etc.) >> >> Of course, Bob, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. As I'm sure >> you would have no doubt, Joseph Newman would differ with you concerning >> your understanding of his Theory and he would maintain that the two coil >> test does indeed perform in accordance with his Theory. > snip-- > >> Not having been a participant in your telephone call I cannot elucidate >> upon the specifics of your mutual discussion. However, if Joseph Newman >> had indeed become upset with you, this would not be surprising. A "temper" >> is no indication either "positive" or "negative" of the "rightness" of >> one's ideas. > >Not the point Evan, "temper" in this case does say quite a lot about >objectivity, or receptivity to new ideas of any possiblity of error. Joe is not especially receptive to someone (a total stranger) calling him on the telephone and proceeding to point out the "error of this ways." He does have respect for the perspective/opinion of that individual(s) for whom _he_ has respect by virtue of their demonstrated and sincere concern for and understanding of his Technical Process. Those associates/assistants with whom he has worked over the years have sometimes made comments, criticisms, recommendations to Joe regarding his invention. Because they have earned his respect he values and respect their comments. > >> Behavior in and of itself is neither "objective" nor "absolute-subjective." > > >Ok, thats your opinion. Correct, it is my opinion based upon the work of Arthur Eddington. > > > >> "Arrogance" is _your_ perception based upon your own set of >> "relative-subjective" guidelines. Was Newton arrogant? Was Semmelweis >> arrogant? And if so, so what? > >Exactly! They are not in question. Ah, but you have "relative-subjectively" misinterpreted my above statement. I am saying not "so what" of __them (they)__ (Newton & Semmelweis), but "so what" of the __question__ of their "arrogance." END OF POST ABOVE FURTHER UPDATE TO BOB: I have left the above statements exactly as I had intended to post them on the List. I have, however, gone back over the squence of posts and it seems as though there is some confusion over the order of posts. To Bob: What post are you claiming that I posted to the List after you posted a private email to me? This is sequence as I have it recorded: I posted "The Scientific Method" to the List. Bob Shannon responded _privately_ to me with a post entitled at the top: ?Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 20:44:53 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Evan Soule Subject: Re: Bedini Questions" I responded privately to Bob with: "Re: Bedini Questions" Then Bob responded with a public post entitled at the top: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 13:50:12 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Scientific Method. Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3621 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com There is also the possibility that one of us may have received a delayed post out of the order in which it was posted. Evan Soule' X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 10:54:41 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 13:50:12 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Scientific Method. References: Resent-Message-ID: <"sq6wB1.0.GT3._d5bp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3621 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Evan Soule wrote: > >I have made an effort to try to understand Mr. Newman's theory, going so > >far as to spend some time with his writtings, but I'm afraid that I keep > >getting back to issues where his theory fails to describe experimental > >reality. (i.e. the two coil tests, etc.) > > Of course, Bob, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. As I'm sure > you would have no doubt, Joseph Newman would differ with you concerning > your understanding of his Theory and he would maintain that the two coil > test does indeed perform in accordance with his Theory. Evan, I responded to your private email off the list server. Now your respond over the list? This is 'bad form' Evan. As I'm sure you are aware, prolonged discussion of Mr. Newman's work raises objections on this forum. I've posted my testing results, and I stand by them. I have nothing more to add on the subject, and I have no wish to recover this ground here. > Not having been a participant in your telephone call I cannot elucidate > upon the specifics of your mutual discussion. However, if Joseph Newman > had indeed become upset with you, this would not be surprising. A "temper" > is no indication either "positive" or "negative" of the "rightness" of > one's ideas. Not the point Even, "temper" in this case does say quite a lot about objectivity, or receptivity to new ideas of any possiblity of error. > Behavior in and of itself is neither "objective" nor "absolute-subjective." Ok, thats your opinion. > "Arrogance" is _your_ perception based upon your own set of > "relative-subjective" guidelines. Was Newton arrogant? Was Semmelweis > arrogant? And if so, so what? Exactly! They are not in question. > If it could be arranged (and it would be an interesting volitional > exercise) I would personally enjoy listening to a calm, private discourse > between yourself and Joseph Newman regarding this aspect of his work. > Under such "controlled" conditions, Joseph Newman could listen to your > elucidation of your position and you could also listen to Joseph Newman's > explanation, in depth. While this would be (IMO) "ideal" -- we do not live > in an "ideal world." So one does the best one can. Are you suggesting mild sedation? (all around!) I attempted exactly this Evan, I called Mr. Newman out of honest interest and wonder. Based on that conversation, I have grave doubts that such a conversation would be possible, although I am more than willing to try. I would only ask that the conversation be restricted to those portions of Mr. Newman's theory which I have directly tested. Anything beyond this would be speculation on my part. I see from your cross posting that there have been requests for data on the time to maximum current in the two coil tests. This data alone is not sufficient based on my test results. What is critical is that the total energy delivered to each coil over the whole period it takes to reach maximum current be compared. At high current demands, the internal impedance of the batteries becomes a significant factor. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 14:00:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: mwm@aa.net Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:54:30 -0700 Date: 03 Jun 97 16:53:01 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Chevron arrnagement Resent-Message-ID: <"P42V83.0.Rq4.5I8bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7830 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick, Hamdi, I don't understand this chevron arrangement which Rick (or Hamdi even more - and Hamdi should not apologise for his English, instead we Anglophones should try to keep our written text fairly formal) claim give thrust. Could one of you please give more details, or correct my understanding? I think that the actual arrangement is that the magnets are in contact but only along part of their length - like 15% of it. ________________________ | NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN | | SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS | --------------------------- | NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN | | SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS | --------------------------- | NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN | | SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS | ------------------------ And these lie along one side of the track such that the distance between the centre of each magnet from the track is the same. On the other side of the track, at the same distance, is a similar row with the other pole closest to the track. Is this right? I've fiddled with this a few times, but I see nothing odd happening. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:21:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 00:56:33 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re:Chevron arrangement Resent-Message-ID: <"k1DGT3.0.PV6.fP9bp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7839 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Could one of you please give more details, or correct my > understanding? I think that the actual arrangement is that > the magnets are in contact but only along part of their > length - like 15% of it. That you described seems right. By the way I am giving the details of my setup: (I am going expert with ascii graphics.) _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NS \ NS \ NS \ . . . . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ /\ /\ / \_/ \_/ \_/ ________________________________ magnetic _ wall <=== (_) start ________________________________ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \/ \/ \ / / / / / / / / / SN / SN / SN / / / / / . . . . . . / / / / \ /\ /\ / \_/ \_/ \_/ Actually the ascii above gives good information about angles and the proportion of the tooth. magnets are original rectangular shaped, not truncated as shown. Clearance from closest point of magnets to the ball should be in range 3mm-10mm. After 2cm the effect is greatly reduced. This setup is suitable for 10x25x40 or 9x22x48 sized magnets. I don't know if the effect is reproducible with smaller sized magnets. The absolute meaning of the magnetic poles it not necessary. All N's may me swapped with S's. Ball is pulled to the end with a continuous force. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 12:49:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM>, vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:13:53 -0500 Subject: Where do simulations imply O/U ?? Reply-to: chronos@enter.net Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"l17-o.0.e1.OB7bp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7825 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 3 Jun 97 at 12:45, vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Date: 03 Jun 97 12:45:12 EDT > From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> > To: Vortex > Subject: (Lack of) Progress > I still find I'm puzzled by the claim that the simulation done to > all the standard rules implies O-U. Is this some breaking of > symmetry, or what the hell does it imply? ZPF? If so, why? Or do > the rules (which supposedly stick to the C of E principle) permit > it? Is this not a paradox? Chris, I too would like to nail this down, so to speak. Can you (or anyone) mention any references to exactly *where* claims were made that "the simulation done to all the standard rules implies O-U" ?? Many people would very surprised if the *conventional* laws of electromagnetism contained a loophole which allowed the camel of non-conservation of energy to get its nose under the tent. HOWEVER: if it is actually possible to tap the ZPE as a hidden energy reservior (to "re-inflate" the electron spins, as suggested by Hal Puthoff, for instance), then this effect would almost certainly show up as EXTRA TERM(s) which must be added to the el ectromagnetic equations in their current form. Best regards, Bob Flower ======================================================= Robert G. Flower, Applied Science Associates Quality Control Engineering Instrumentation Systems - Technology Transfer ======================================================= X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 11:19:59 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 11:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 14:17:33 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bearden Questions References: <199706030343_MC2-17BF-59DC@compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"GZZTy.0.gO4.N16bp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3622 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph E Griffin wrote: > >So why was a device already known not to show over unity operation > >included in Mr. Bearden's work? > > >Deliberate misinformation. Bearden had already seen a demo of the MRA, > >and knew better when "The Final Secret.." was released. > > You have offered some fairly powerfull evedence in support of your > conclusion. I see you know your way arround Bearden's work quite well. Thanks, I've been at this stuff for quite some time now. > What are the biggest barriers to proceeding with the design of a working > free energy device (not just a detector) based on his earlier theories? > (Never mind the cost. I am only addressing the issue of design at this > time. I am not saying that money is not a problem. I just don't think it > would be fruitfull to allow money to be the focus of discussion at this > time.) None that I see. There does however appear to be a huge lack of practical 'how to' information on scalar engineering. There are fairly few who actually construct such devices however. Most people are far more interested in getting disconnected from teh power grid than they are interested in mastering a new technology. We must crawl before we walk, and expect to fall down a lot while learning. How many are willing to invest this level of effort to do things the hard way? Thats the barrier that must be overcome. This is what is responsible for the lack of practical information in the first place! X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 14:31:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:27:19 -0700 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 17:27:58 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: <199706031556.IAA16000@germany.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"kdYw83.0.497.rm8bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7834 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > > > How did you arrange your sawtooth magnets, like a "V" (see A below) or a > lamba (see B below)? I tried both and got the "V" design to work, as I wrote > to Rick. The ball travel from left to right. > /////// \\\\\\\\ > A ===o====> worked B ====o====> Didn't work > \\\\\\\ //////// > OK, Mike - what's the difference in the above layouts - shouldn't the "B" configuration work if you let the ball move from right to left? Thats what I tried - the thing actually worked about the same from a start from either end. The ball would traverse 5 nulls and hang in the 6th at EITHER end. I'm using a 28 inch aluminum carpenter's level to set up the base board. > > In SMOT, I found (and probably others) that the ball will not start from the > interior of the arrays. It needs to be sucked into the field. The same > occurrs with diagram B above but would not traverse more than 5 magnets in > the array. But with diagram A, the ball only needs to be in the array to > start and would not start if outside the field. This is big difference and > unique that the ball can start anywhere in the array field and will always > travel toward the end (toward the right in A diagram). Mike, if I found this condition I WOULD PROCEED TO GET ENOUGH MAGNETS FOR A CLOSED CIRCLE AND WIP UP A ROTARY RIG!! > > Hi Frank, > > If you have the time you might want to try the V array. I did it by flipping > the array over and putting the ball inside the field to start it moving. I > hope this helps. Again, Mike - isn't this the same as starting the ball from the other end of my level track? It also bothers me that the ball can not be started from "some" interior point in a 4-SMOT linkup and complete the trip to the end!! Someone will have to explain to me why 360 SMOT ramps in a huge, level circle with only 1 degree of "link angle" will not start from SOME point in that circle. I'm not asking for ANY net lift here - just continual motion! Here's my frustrating points: 1. Will such a 360 SMOT, 1 degree link-angle closed circle of linked SMOTS operate continuously ON THE LEVEL WITH ZERO NET LIFT? 2. If it will, then I assume you must give it a "shove" to start it at some point? Or, can you just place it in the optimum start point at the entrance to one of the ramps? 3. Wouldn't an attempt to start up a 4-SMOT straight link-up from some interior point shed some insight on this question? Have any Vortexians achieved a solid roll-a-way of the ball on a track at the INITIAL height - I mean one or two array lengths on a set-up surface checked with an accurate level?? Again, Mike, - if you have a continuous one-way force in a rogue array, why not go rotary? Good luck - Frustrated Frank S. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 11:39:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 11:39:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 14:37:27 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A mundane explanation of SMOTs References: <199705310000.UAA27226@big.seorf.ohiou.edu> <338FAAFB.5D16@microtronics.com.au> <3390DBDE.41D2@tiac.net> <3390BC53.3B55@microtronics.com.au> <3390F013.4A6B@tiac.net> <3390CD9B.6BB7@microtronics.com.a u> <339300C9.1277@tiac.net> <3247C694.42Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"7qq0I.0.G06.ZJ6bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3623 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Admiral Piett wrote: > > Bob Shannon wrote: > > > > So while I'm quite sure that 'over unity' operation is indeed possible, > > I am not at all sure that it is any 'better' a technology than fossile > > fuels, nuclear power, or other power generation methods. This might > > point back to the 'no free lunch' philosophy often mentioned on the list > > server. > > Not a better technology? The OU/ZPE devices being studied here > offer > the promise of a non-polluting source of energy. If, in your view, > this fact alone doesn't make it a better technology, then I > respectfully > submit that your view of the universe is either very narrow, or very > naive, or both. Why thanks! You write "the promise of a non-polluting source of energy", which I find quite interesting. On what facts can you base this so called "promise"? There is absolutely no basis in fact for this assumption. Every technology has carried a hidden cost, often unknown until the technology was in wide use. Even our current electromagnetic power distribution technology is now highly suspect of having biol ogical effects. Just who "promised" you that over unity technology would be any different? You have that in writting I assume? I'm basing my opinions on actual experimental data, not wishfull thinking. Polarize and tap the ZPE, and there IS a cost. The guy shoveling coal probalby never gave nuclear waste a fleeting thought either. (Waiting for the torch & pitchfork bearing peasants outside my door! I shall surely burn as a heritic one day!) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 14:54:09 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:52:05 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:19:03 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: <199706031556.IAA16000@germany.it.earthlink.net> <33948C5E.4079@interlaced.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"wDOhH1.0.fR.389bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3627 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > Michael Randall wrote: > > > > > > How did you arrange your sawtooth magnets, like a "V" (see A below) or a > > lamba (see B below)? I tried both and got the "V" design to work, as I wrote > > to Rick. The ball travel from left to right. > > /////// \\\\\\\\ > > A ===o====> worked B ====o====> Didn't work > > \\\\\\\ //////// > > > > OK, Mike - what's the difference in the above layouts - shouldn't the > "B" configuration work if you let the ball move from right to left? > Thats what I tried - the thing actually worked about the same from > a start from either end. The ball would traverse 5 nulls and hang in > the 6th at EITHER end. I'm using a 28 inch aluminum carpenter's level > to set up the base board. > > > > In SMOT, I found (and probably others) that the ball will not start from the > > interior of the arrays. It needs to be sucked into the field. Linked SMOT ramps will self start from an interior position. To do this requires the inter ramp linking distance to be closed up somewhat. The SMOT ramp design as presented has been setup to allow incremental height gain by linking. It never was my intention to do a continual loop of SMOT Ramps. I have never tried that. >> The same > > occurrs with diagram B above but would not traverse more than 5 magnets in > > the array. But with diagram A, the ball only needs to be in the array to > > start and would not start if outside the field. This is big difference and > > unique that the ball can start anywhere in the array field and will always > > travel toward the end (toward the right in A diagram). > > Mike, if I found this condition I WOULD PROCEED TO GET ENOUGH MAGNETS > FOR A CLOSED CIRCLE AND WIP UP A ROTARY RIG!! > > > > Hi Frank, > > > > If you have the time you might want to try the V array. I did it by flipping > > the array over and putting the ball inside the field to start it moving. I > > hope this helps. > > Again, Mike - isn't this the same as starting the ball from the other > end of my level track? > > It also bothers me that the ball can not be started from "some" interior > point in a 4-SMOT linkup and complete the trip to the end!! Someone > will have to explain to me why 360 SMOT ramps in a huge, level circle > with only 1 degree of "link angle" will not start from SOME point in > that circle. I'm not asking for ANY net lift here - just continual > motion! Here's my frustrating points: I believe they would, but the inter ramp linking distance would be required to close up somewhat. > 1. Will such a 360 SMOT, 1 degree link-angle closed circle of > linked SMOTS operate continuously ON THE LEVEL WITH ZERO > NET LIFT? I believe so, even though I have never tried this. > 2. If it will, then I assume you must give it a "shove" to start > it at some point? Or, can you just place it in the optimum > start point at the entrance to one of the ramps? No shove required. They can self start. > 3. Wouldn't an attempt to start up a 4-SMOT straight link-up > from some interior point shed some insight on this question? The SMOT design is aimed at linking to provide incremental drop height increase to get a rollaway and allow use of the "N" gauge return track. > Have any Vortexians achieved a solid roll-a-way of the ball on a track > at the INITIAL height - I mean one or two array lengths on a set-up > surface checked with an accurate level?? > > Again, Mike, - if you have a continuous one-way force in a rogue array, > why not go rotary? > > Good luck - Frustrated Frank S. Hi Frank, Guess how I felt as I developed the SMOT. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:00:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 03 Jun 97 17:53:05 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"V28Ji2.0.Rg5.aC9bp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7837 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Frank, > I'm using a 28 inch aluminum carpenter's level to set up the base > board. I wouldn't trust that. With a well-polished track and a good ball you can detect 1mm in a metre with no difficulty whatever. Just roll the ball back and forth. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:02:26 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:00:32 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:28:33 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT kits References: Resent-Message-ID: <"f70kw2.0.yD1.wF9bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3628 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Horace Heffner wrote: > > At 7:18 PM 6/3/97, Peter King & Andrew Marks wrote: > >Hi Greg, > > > >Has the SMOT kit been tested by independent people yet, like Jean-Louis ? > > > >Are they available yet ? > > > >How many have you sold ? > > > >I want to buy a kit from you as I have been experimenting with various > >magnets and ramps but with only a small amount of success and I want to > >take a big jump forward by using something that has been already de-bugged. > [snip] > > I am interested in a kit also, once there is independent confirmation of a > closed loop. It seems like it would be very good if a number of people, > especially those not presently having success, built from exactly the same > materials. It is very good of you to offer a kit. Your kit doesn't appear > to include the track though. Any chance you would offer a kit that > includes the track, so we would all be using the same material? My only > interest is in a closed loop system. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner Hi Horace, I am looking at including the "N" gauge rail. Problem is posting size. My existing SMOY kits are VERY compact. I designed it all to pack together in a very small space. Thats how I can include postal air costs in the price. I am trying to hold the price constant AND include the track. The track makes it harded to achieve a small compact package. I have found the smaller the package the more likely it is to arrive at the other end undamaged. But its only another problem to solve. Will get back in a day or so. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 20:19:44 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 20:06:56 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:03:29 (-050 Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Real Time SMOT sims] CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"oolUz2.0.8I6.ElDbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3642 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:35:38 +0930 > From: Greg Watson Hi Greg, Epitaxy, gwatson@microtronics.com.au wrote: > Anyone know any more about this magic magnetic field analysis paper? > > I would like to get a supply and include it in ALL SMOT kits. Should > help ALL of us better adjust our SMOT ramps. American Science & Supply has what they call "Magnetic Film" which is a 25 x 50 mm (1 x 2 inch) piece consisting of 2 layers of plastic inside which is laminated a mixture of powdered iron, nickel and steel suspended in oil droplets. It's described on page 19 of their Feb, 1996 catalog (#101) and their catalog number is 10273 -- each piece is priced at $1.50 US. Their phone is 847-982-0870 and address is: American Science & Surplus 3605 Howard Street Skokie IL 60076 I ran across this item about 10 minutes before I read your message as I was scouring my catalogs looking for better magnets. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:30:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:28:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:37:15 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 References: <3394754F.9DD33F43@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"gCrlR3.0.8f3.lf9bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3629 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > No, I am not, but another friend of us is going hit the NAIL. > > Horace we are complementing us. > > I was not aware of this patent. The letter below is dated 4 days before > I subscribed to vortex. And I found this letter now in my hard disk > archived as vtx9703.txt a huge archive of 1282Kb. > > After reading the mail, may one can ask to Greg an interesting question. > > --------------34B42D48736 > Content-Type: message/rfc822 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline > > Message-ID: <3327C524.3B7D@microtronics.com.au> > Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:43:08 +0930 > From: Greg Watson > Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au > Organization: Greg Watson Consulting > X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Forget Hamel's Spinner, Try This > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hi All, > > Forget Hamel's Spinner. Check out Patent 4,443,776, David Cunningham, > Rotary Magnet Device. It's a permanent magnet motor that looks like it > should work. It produces a contiguous "B" field using permanent magnets > (something I thought, until today, wasn't possible). It even claims to > rotate in the claim section. Construction is simple, but not easy to > quickly duplicate. Lets see who can duplicate it first. > > Comments? > > -- > Best Regards Greg Watson Consulting gwatson@microtronics.com.au > Greg Watson Adelaide, S. Australia 61 8 8270 2737 Home/Office/Fax > 61 18 833 461 Mobile > > --------------34B42D48736-- > > Regards, > > Handi Ucar Hi Handi, The above mentioned patent us one of a multiple lot I posted to the group as interesing patents to study. The list was composed by Fred Epps and myself. I have also posted other references to this patent. I did a few QField sims of the proposed magnet arrangement and came to the conclusion that it probably would not work. I have voiced this opinion here before. I could be wrong. What the inventor is trying to do, should in theory work. My QField sims showed not a contigous "B" field, but a series of opposite direction nodes. If QField is right, these nodes would nullify any rotational operation. But, as I always say. Give it a go. Build a device and study the results no matter what happens! Best Regards, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:30:07 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:28:16 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:56:18 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT kits References: <199706031819.TAA31755@tycho.global.net.uk> Resent-Message-ID: <"l0WT21.0.hg3.uf9bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3630 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Peter King & Andrew Marks wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > Has the SMOT kit been tested by independent people yet, like Jean-Louis ? I have not shipped any kits yet. Tomorrow I get the heat formed bases. Many have built from the plans and the their SMOT ramp seem to work. The kits will come "adjusted". The pin holes to use will be marked for each ramp. The magnet placings will be marked. The magnets will be labeled as to where they go (Left, Right, Which ramp). The magnets are different and are sometimes not interchangeable without adjustments being made. In the SMOT kits, I am trying to overcome as many of the adjustment problems as I can. Some adjustment skills will still be needed though. Assembly is quick and simple. 1) Mount the rail in the base. 2) Put the pins in the designated adjustment holes. 3) Lay the pre built magnet arrays on the side supports as indicated. 4) Load a ball and release. 5) Ball climbs ramp and drops off the end. That my design goal. > Are they available yet ? In a few days. > How many have you sold ? I have orders for around 15 kits at present. I have purchased materials for 100 kits. > I want to buy a kit from you as I have been experimenting with various > magnets and ramps but with only a small amount of success and I want to > take a big jump forward by using something that has been already de-bugged. > I have got a lift of 8mm using a 19mm ball bearing and 12 x 2cm ferrite > boron magnets. OK. > I have found a source of the much better sintered antisotropic rare earth > Neodynium Iron Boron magnets, but these are not cheap. Ask Epitaxy, power is NOT the answer. In fact the use of powerful magnets makes things very difficult. Use cheap fridge magnets. > The setup is very sensitive like you say and if is out by a fraction of a > mm then the ball just hangs at the end of the ramp, even if you give a good > push to start it rolling. Sounds like you have the top spacing too close or you need to slide the magnets up the ramp a bit. If this still doesn't help, try reducing the lift height. There is a max lift height that you just can't go above. I am working to be able to define how that ties into the other parameters. The idea on the exit seems to be to just roll the ball up to the edge of the "Blue Hole" and the slide the ball down the exit face and under. The "Blue Hole" is actually a smashed sphere hovering in space at the end of the magnet arrays > Cheers. Hi Peter and Andrew, Hope the above helps, I will update by hint and adjustment list later today. You will find ideas to achieve your exit. Best Regards, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:38:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 17:26:33 -0500 From: Craig Haynie Reply-To: ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Hello Greg References: <33948501.F423CD9A@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"dsb081.0.ox6.hj9bp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7842 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hello Greg! So, Greg, do you wake up every morning, run over to your workbench, put the ball back on your ramps and let it cycle a few times, just to make sure it still works? I know that's what I would do if I found an effect like this. :) Seriously, though, you ought to consider finding a place to keep it. Try to run it for as long as possible. See if it runs out. See if the ball magnetizes, or other anomalies occur in use. It could lead to a deeper understanding, or perhaps a simpler expl anation of what's going on. Hasta, Craig Haynie ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 16:38:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:36:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:59:32 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: <970603215305_100433.1541_BHG46-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wJdqn1.0.0U4.In9bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7844 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Frank, > > > I'm using a 28 inch aluminum carpenter's level to set up the base > > board. > > I wouldn't trust that. With a well-polished track and a good ball you > can detect 1mm in a metre with no difficulty whatever. Just roll the > ball back and forth. > > Chris Hi Chris, I agree! Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:38:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:35:53 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 08:01:56 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chevron arrangement References: <33948501.F423CD9A@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"KYwdV1.0.ET4.7n9bp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3632 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Hi, > > > Chris Tinsley wrote: > > > Could one of you please give more details, or correct my > > understanding? I think that the actual arrangement is that > > the magnets are in contact but only along part of their > > length - like 15% of it. > > That you described seems right. By the way I am giving the details of my > setup: > > (I am going expert with ascii graphics.) > > _ _ _ > / \ / \ / \ > / \/ \/ \ > \ \ \ \ > \ \ \ \ > \ NS \ NS \ NS \ . . . . > \ \ \ \ > \ \ \ \ > \ /\ /\ / > \_/ \_/ \_/ > ________________________________ > magnetic _ > wall <=== (_) start > ________________________________ > _ _ _ > / \ / \ / \ > / \/ \/ \ > / / / / > / / / / > / SN / SN / SN / > / / / / . . . . . . > / / / / > \ /\ /\ / > \_/ \_/ \_/ > > Actually the ascii above gives good information about angles and the > proportion of the tooth. magnets are original rectangular shaped, not > truncated as shown. > > Clearance from closest point of magnets to the ball should be in range > 3mm-10mm. After 2cm the effect is greatly reduced. > > This setup is suitable for 10x25x40 or 9x22x48 sized magnets. I don't > know if the effect is reproducible with smaller sized magnets. > > The absolute meaning of the magnetic poles it not necessary. All N's may > me swapped with S's. > > Ball is pulled to the end with a continuous force. > > Regards, > > Hamdi Ucar Hi Hamdi, I will do some QField sims for you of this. Will post them in a few hours. Looks interesting. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:45:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:42:01 -0700 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 17:34:41 -0500 From: Craig Haynie Reply-To: ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Simple Test for you Achievers! References: <33948501.F423CD9A@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"BGRax1.0.my4.ts9bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7846 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hello! Those of you who have achieved single ramp roll-away, multi-ramp roll away, or multi-ramp linkage with no roll-away, here is a simple test to check for anomalous behavior. Single Ramp and Multi-Ramp Roll-Away: Put the device on a level surface, facing north. Try the device in this direction, then turn it to the west and try it, then to the south and try it, then to the east and try it. If the ball will traverse the ramp from a complete stop, in all four directions, then this is good confirmation that there isn't some hidden gravitational force, or other force, creating the effect. Multi-Ramp Linkage without Roll-Away: If you can successfully link two ramps together, then go through the 4-direction test described above, and then reverse the order of the ramps, without any adjustment to the magnets, and successfully complete the four direction test again, then this is a good indication of an anomaly. Hasta, Craig Haynie ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:53:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:49:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 08:14:38 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: <199706031556.IAA16000@germany.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"fUCDv.0.uX5.0-9bp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7848 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > > At 07:02 PM 6/2/97 -0400, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > >Rick Monteverde wrote: > >> > >> Frank - > >> > >> I think we need to be very careful, these things are very interesting and > >> even compelling, but until we've got the thing spinning for hours on our > >> workbenches, we might not be any closer than anyone else ever was. They've > >> never worked before, AFAIK. > >> > > > >I agree Rick! This evening I set up one of your sawtooth rogues with > >12 magnets which I think are identical to yours. (Radio Shack?) > >I had 6 magnets on each side of my 12 mm Al rail and my 1.5 inch steel > >ball. The magnets were "piggy-back" with about 1/4 inch overlap. > >With the rail dead level I noticed the following: > >(Note, this was a tight packing with the magnets in contact and the > >inside corner of the magnets clearing the ball only by about 1/8 inch.) > > > > 1. The ball would enter from a dead stop and move through 5 > > null points (blue holes?). > > 2. The ball would NOT exit but bounced off the sixth null and > > oscillated a while - finally captured in one of the nulls. > > 3. The BALL WOULD NOT START FROM AN INTERIOR NULL POINT! > > If I slowly pushed it past a null point, it would settle > > into the next one. > > 4. So, the ball DID traverse to the end IF started in the fringe > > field at EITHER END of the array. (from a stop!) > > How did you arrange your sawtooth magnets, like a "V" (see A below) or a > lamba (see B below)? I tried both and got the "V" design to work, as I wrote > to Rick. The ball travel from left to right. > /////// \\\\\\\\ > A ===o====> worked B ====o====> Didn't work > \\\\\\\ //////// > > >I get the feeling that if I had a big circle of these sawtooth > >configured magnets that THE BALL WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO TRAVERSE. > > > >Linkers of SMOT ramps might try to start the balls from an INTERIOR > >ramp. It would be interesting to know if the ball would start from such > >a point! Of course, if an elevation gain is confirmed, I can't see > >why a roll-a-round would not close the loop. BUT, IT STILL DRIVES ME > >CRAZY!! > > In SMOT, I found (and probably others) that the ball will not start from the > interior of the arrays. It needs to be sucked into the field. If you reduce the inter ramp linking distance, interior starts can be done. > The same > occurrs with diagram B above but would not traverse more than 5 magnets in > the array. But with diagram A, the ball only needs to be in the array to > start and would not start if outside the field. This is big difference and > unique that the ball can start anywhere in the array field and will always > travel toward the end (toward the right in A diagram). > > > >I agree that it is MOST IMPORTANT to try to replicate Greg's results. > >If he's right, then we need to REMODEL physics! > > > >Frank Stenger > > Hi Frank, > > If you have the time you might want to try the V array. I did it by flipping > the array over and putting the ball inside the field to start it moving. I > hope this helps. > > This also gave me a break from my SMOT unit. In the linking of two ramps I > need Blue tack or something to hold the arrays in place and for adjustments. > I'm still having problems in the two ramp mag arrays physically linking and > need to fasten them so they don't interfer with each other. It is > challenging though. :) > > Best Regards, > Michael Randall Hi Michael, Sounds like you are using different polarity arrays. SN SN SN SN SN SN NS NS NS NS NS NS instead of SN SN SN SN SN SN SN SN SN SN SN SN In the first arrangement, the arrays from two linked SMOT ramps will attract each other and in the second they will repel each other. The lower array arrangement is the one I use for linking. However I have experimented with the first, but not too far as the magnets from both arrays attract each other and lift off the side magnet supports. Using the first arrangement, I got much better linking results, the second linked ramp actually assists with the ball climbing the first ramp. But I went back to the second as I thought it would cause less problems overall. But hey, experiment with the first system. Just devise a way to hold the magnets to the magnet supports. Blu-Tack ......... why didn't I think of that! Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 15:56:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:54:55 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 08:23:07 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hello Greg References: <33948501.F423CD9A@verisoft.com.tr> <33949A19.4B4E@ix.netcom.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"Yw8xK1.0.h06.v2Abp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3633 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Craig Haynie wrote: > > Hello Greg! > > So, Greg, do you wake up every morning, run over to your workbench, put > the ball back on your ramps and let it cycle a few times, just to make > sure it still works? With my first RMOD, I got about 2 hours straight sleep over 4 days, checked it every two hours. It was my new baby. After a while, I moved it closer to the bedroom and just listened. Mow I am working on RMOD Mark II. No Noise, No Ramps. Just pure rotary torque. > I know that's what I would do if I found an effect like this. :) > > Seriously, though, you ought to consider finding a place to keep it. Try > to run it for as long as possible. See if it runs out. See if the ball > magnetizes, or other anomalies occur in use. It could lead to a deeper > understanding, or perhaps a simpler explanation of what's going on. > > Hasta, > > Craig Haynie > ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com Hi Craig, In the SMOT system, using the "N" gauge track for the ball return, the ball turns many times. I haven't seen a magnetised ball yet. I keep my balls attached to a big ring magnet. Don't know if that has an effect or not? Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 16:33:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:31:30 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Re: Tesla, looking for answers Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:29:46 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"9teAn3.0.3d.HbAbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3635 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Evan and others, Evan, thanks for the excellent synopsis of Tesla's thoughts on Free Energy. I haven't seen some of those quotations before. I haven't dug up the article by Nicholson yet, but what I remember correlates with your quotes. Do you think that Tesla at any point actually had an O/U device working, or was he working from his supernormal visualization ability to describe possible mac hines? I haven't seen any concrete evidence that he had any working device. Yes, I know about his "radiant energy reciever" patent, but noone has ever seen that demonstrated as far as I know... Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 16:39:56 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:38:24 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:37:44 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Longest run for Greg Resent-Message-ID: <"XM6GQ.0.Nz.khAbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3636 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, I'm trying to do some back tracking. How long have you ran your smot without it's stopping. One hour, two hours, ect. Thanks, Butch X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 17:26:33 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 17:11:56 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 09:39:24 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hello Greg References: <199706032259.AAA24575@atom.bbtt.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"vLNYl1.0.SR3.ABBbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3638 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Stefan Hartmann wrote: > > > > >Hi Craig, > > > >In the SMOT system, using the "N" gauge track for the ball return, the > >ball turns many times. Yes. > How long does it run continiously ? Best time at present is about 10 minutes. > What has been the longest time you did run the N gauge SMOT > in a closed loop ? I was wondering how long it would take until I was asked that! > Does the ball drop out of the tracks after a while, cause > it gets to much speed ? No, the "Blue Hole's" walls still cause a self regulation effect. > Regards, Stefan. Hi Stefan, I have started the second version (plexiglas) of the RMOD Mark I running at 00:00 this morning. It is a much improved mechanical version with a small flywheel. I hope to be able to do some real torque measurements soon. Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 18:16:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:05:24 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:33:04 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hello Greg References: <199706040027.CAA27038@atom.bbtt.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"sMvEw1.0.qK1.IzBbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3639 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Stefan Hartmann wrote: > > >Stefan Hartmann wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Hi Craig, > >> > > >> >In the SMOT system, using the "N" gauge track for the ball return, the > >> >ball turns many times. > > > >Yes. > > > >> How long does it run continiously ? > > > >Best time at present is about 10 minutes. > > Why does it stop after 10 minutes ??? I don't know. The energy balance is very low. Maybe there is something in the ball becoming magnetized. As the ball moves through the 150mm radius turns, its skids and turns. I have marked a ball with a marker and observed this. Maybe if I am unlucky the ball enters the bottom of the ramp in the same rotation as it left and the tiny residual magnetism from the last pass builds. But most of the time the ball rotation is random and any residual magnetism is wiped by the next pass. I am attempting to increase the final drop height and put more energy into the return by lifting the upper end of the track. The earlier curved ramps and curved links ran for 3 hours and 27 minutes. > >> What has been the longest time you did run the N gauge SMOT > >> in a closed loop ? > > > >I was wondering how long it would take until I was asked that! > > > >> Does the ball drop out of the tracks after a while, cause > >> it gets to much speed ? > > > >No, the "Blue Hole's" walls still cause a self regulation effect. > > What is a BLUE HOLE ??? The null zone at the ends of the mag arrays. Look at the array sims. The null zones are Blue. They are now officially the "Blue Holes" > >> Regards, Stefan. > > > >Hi Stefan, > > > >I have started the second version (plexiglas) of the RMOD Mark I running > >at 00:00 this morning. It is a much improved mechanical version with a > >small flywheel. I hope to be able to do some real torque measurements > >soon. > > Sounds great ! Keep on trying ! > > I guess I will also order one of your SMOT kits soon. > > Stay tuned. > Regards, Stefan. Hi Stefan, Ok, will look forward to the order. Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 18:08:37 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:35:38 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Real Time SMOT sims] Resent-Message-ID: <"8Xrwd1.0.i06.90Cbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3640 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Anyone know any more about this magic magnetic field analysis paper? I would like to get a supply and include it in ALL SMOT kits. Should help ALL of us better adjust our SMOT ramps. Greg Received: from orion.Localaccess.com (Orion.localaccess.com [206.64.48.2]) by orca.microtronics.com.au (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA29876 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:27:19 +0930 (CST) Received: from orion.Localaccess.com by orio n.Localaccess.com (NTMail 3.02.11) with ESMTP id ba744589 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:57:03 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970603155742.00b1fd10@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 15:58:00 -0700 To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Real Time SMOT sims Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The "magnetic paper" makes adjusting the SMOT a breeze. For example after total disassembly (no marks) it takes me roughly 8 hours to adjust my ego improved and capricious NdFeB ramps. With the "magnetic paper" I can be finished in 45minutes. It is like having "magnetic eyes", the visual feedbacks that this paper provides feel like a difference between blindness and sight !!! I bet you could improve the educational effectiveness of SMOT kit 10 times with this "magnetic paper ". Like I said before, you can see the "blue hole". All you have to do is make sure that the U channel ends exactly in the middle of that hole... You c an also see very clearly the "neutral line" and any effect of the next ramp on the "neutral line" or "blue hole" and the magnetic flux gradient. P.S. Haven't found the surplus source yet, still have several hundred kilograms of catalogs to go through, it is there somewhere. I have a picture of this surplus catalog "in my minds eye" :) >Edmund's Scientific in USA. +1-609-573-6250 > >I also have seen a very cheap surplus source, I will look through my catalog collection and report >back wit a telephone number after I get some sleep tonight (still fighting with the NdFeB magnets :) > >I could order you some (I'll buy) if you cannot find a source down under. Let me know. > At 07:07 PM 6/3/97 +0930, you wrote: >Epitaxy wrote: >> >> The magnetic paper that changes color in response to different densities >> of magnetic flux, is cheap and makes great tuning addition to SMOT ramps. >> You can see the position of the "blue hole" in real time. Very neat ! > >Hi Epitaxy, > >Where does one get one's hands on some of this magic stuff. > >I will download your files tonight. > >What do you think of the "N" guage rollaround? > >By the way, SMOT kit #2 has been earmarked for you. Who knows, someday >it may be worth a college education. > > >Best Regards, > Greg > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 18:48:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:40:32 -0600 From: bx196@freenet.uchsc.EDU (Mike W. McClure) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: 'S' curve on SMOT Reply-To: bx196@freenet.uchsc.EDU Resent-Message-ID: <"6Ita8.0.FB7.OVCbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7857 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I'm a new smot builder, and might have missed the 'S' curve postings. Is this a "curve" in the aluminum channel 'ALONG' its Length? Or, is this a "curve" right at the exit area of the smot where it DROPS OFF. I looked at PICS at http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/smotidx.htm But didn't see anything *except* maybe an "S" shaped GRAPH.. Is this it? Is it an imaginary "S" shape curve.. how do some of you grind it? Thanks for any help. Mike -- X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 19:24:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:58:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 21:58:46 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: <970603215305_100433.1541_BHG46-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Y0QbP1.0.aY3.KlCbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7858 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Frank, > > > I'm using a 28 inch aluminum carpenter's level to set up the base > > board. > > I wouldn't trust that. With a well-polished track and a good ball you > can detect 1mm in a metre with no difficulty whatever. Just roll the > ball back and forth. > > Chris I agree too, Chris. However, my machined-edge level will show 1 mm per m slope - if you're careful. It's just easier to work with the level when the magnets are around - which is often the case with my hand carried rig-on-a-board. Anywhy, I'll give you the 1 mm/m slope and still jump for joy if you do a 12 mm lift and roll-away at the same level - I'm still not clear on just how many SMOTers are doing that using your good level technique. Part time SMOTer, full time remodeler - Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 19:45:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:26:20 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 11:29:33 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: 'S' curve on SMOT References: <199706040140.TAA22610@freenet.uchsc.EDU> Resent-Message-ID: <"Hxlh-2.0.Pt3.B9Dbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7859 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mike W. McClure wrote: > > I'm a new smot builder, and might have missed the 'S' curve postings. > Is this a "curve" in the aluminum channel 'ALONG' its Length? Or, is > this a "curve" right at the exit area of the smot where it DROPS OFF. > I looked at PICS at http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/smotidx.htm > But didn't see anything *except* maybe an "S" shaped GRAPH.. Is this it? > Is it an imaginary "S" shape curve.. how do some of you grind it? > Thanks for any help. > Mike > > -- Hi Mike, I have attached the necessary details. The "S" curve is in the exit portion of the ramp. It helps to save the rolling energy stored in the ball. Make linking much easier. Hope this helps, Greg Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\SMO1.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 13:34:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:23:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Da te: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:21:04 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Chevron arrnagement Resent-Message-ID: <"uT92g2.0.qr2.iwSbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7904 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mpower - > Go down to the shipyard and find someone who's > 'chipping' a vessel prior to painting it - you might > also look for a vessl being sandblasted - you can > generally peel some old ferrites out of the the > backwash. GMTA - I thought of that, but didn't know if the bits from the sandblast were really "ferrite", or just nasty rust. I can magnetically separate it from the blast grit is suppose, and concentrate it. Thanks for the tip! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 13:28:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:25:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:22:46 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Chevron arrnagement Resent-Message-ID: <"veozF3.0.ex2.xySbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7905 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris - > If you can cast such things, you should use iron > powder as your material. That's whatI'll use. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 14:11:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:41:19 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:37:08 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 Resent-Message-ID: <"GQ8BE.0.nM3.kBTbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7906 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael - > I built a pair of 1x23 parallel mag assay 190mm > long and the ball traveled the lenght. Did the ball appear to have a slower net speed during the trip down this long ramp than it does on a shorter ramp of the same geometry, spacing from the rail, etc.? It's an important question which goes to the usefulness of this sort of design. If the mag netic 'potential' between the ends of two different arrays - one long array and one short - are the same, the ball should travel well through the shorter array, and slower through the longer array. This would mean that with an array beyond a certain lengt h but still having that same potential difference between its ends, the ball would not see enough of this potential difference per linear unit to make the trip because it would have fallen behind the power curve, so to speak. That is *if* there's no net ' magic' or OU coming into the system continuously along the array to help keep the ball going. Case #1 (no magic) longer arrays stretch the magnetic potential difference too thin and the ball won't go. Case #2 (magic) longer arrays still work because there's mysterious energy in the form of "watsons" coming into the system. IMO, it would be a good conventional/OU test for this kind of array, and might save people the trouble of trying to build a Cunningham type of rotary device which would then have no chance of working if case #1 is what is observed. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 20:01:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:48:32 -0700 Date: 03 Jun 97 22:45:44 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Chevron arrnagement Resent-Message-ID: <"G1gFo2.0.E85._TDbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7861 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick said: >>But it seems like others are using the chevron array in a way that allows using stronger fields up close to the rail.<< Rail! That's it. Build a flat rail using the N-gauge in a circle and chevron magnets around it. Hmmm...I wonder if you can run trains that way. Terry X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 20:37:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 20:24:31 -0700 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 23:21:42 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Real Time SMOT sims] References: <199706040305.WAA15412@dsm7.dsmnet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"VJmqY.0.qW7.k_Dbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3643 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Edmund Scientific has it also 2 4"x4" sheets for 11.75 us the number is (609)573-6250 Dave DeLeo Dean T. Miller wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:35:38 +0930 > > From: Greg Watson > Hi Greg, Epitaxy, > > gwatson@microtronics.com.au wrote: > > > Anyone know any more about this magic magnetic field analysis paper? > > > > I would like to get a supply and include it in ALL SMOT kits. Should > > help ALL of us better adjust our SMOT ramps. > > American Science & Supply has what they call "Magnetic Film" which is a 25 x > 50 mm (1 x 2 inch) piece consisting of 2 layers of plastic inside which is > laminated a mixture of powdered iron, nickel and steel suspended in oil > droplets. > > It's described on page 19 of their Feb, 1996 catalog (#101) and their catalog > number is 10273 -- each piece is priced at $1.50 US. > > Their phone is 847-982-0870 and address is: > > American Science & Surplus > 3605 Howard Street > Skokie IL 60076 > > I ran across this item about 10 minutes before I read your message as I was > scouring my catalogs looking for better magnets. > > -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 21:42:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 21:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:40:13 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: still trying (SMOT) Resent-Message-ID: <"4iAK6.0.it4.c7Fbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7868 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Another significant effort today with our 2 SMOT ramps. We have now pretty much concluded that there is no chance of a level roll away with our short magnets. Taller magnets arrive tomorrow. HAS ANYONE (BESIDES GREG) ACHIEVED THE LEVEL ROLL AWAY GREG MENTIONED TODAY? X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 21:44:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 21:43:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ewall-rsg@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: Ed Wall Subject: Mu Metal--Blue hole Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 04:41:00 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"_rdK-3.0.V05.b9Fbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7869 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Vortexaphiles, For you SMOTers, I suggest trying some mu metal to sheild and shape the magnetic field near the drop zone. Maybe making a trap door out of mu metal over the blue hole? Just a thought. Ed X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 21:51:38 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 21:51:09 -0700 (PDT) To: "freenrg-L@eskimo.com" Subject: Dennis Lee promises a free energy demonstration July 10 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 00:49:48 -0500 From: Eric Krieg -voicenet Resent-Message-ID: <"35oYl.0.9X5.sGFbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3644 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com hey free people, There are big plans for a Better World Technology (BWT) show in Colorado Springs to compete with the Tesla society meeting also honoring the controversial inventors birthday July 10-13. This is Dennis's latest promise to show free energy (mind you that many of us have seen other demonstration promises broken) . I have a feeling it will be another 5 seconds of glowing bulbs and then back to more rambling pseudo-science, conspiracy theory, religion and politics. Ex-convict Dennis Lee is still mad at the Tesla society (I don't understand since Dennis's heat pump based machine has nothing to do with Tesla's theories) . BWT pledges to expose those who shame Tesla's name and they also say, "We are about to subdue th e power companies." I fear that FE fraud hurts the image of serious inventors and I provide more skeptical information on Dennis Lee's colorful way of raising millions of dollars at: http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis.html other possible pages of interest are: claims of 100 mpg carburetors: http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis27.htm history of wild free energy claims: http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis4.html Eric eric@voicenet.com http://www.voicenet.com/~eric X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 23:59:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:58:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:57:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Hello Greg Resent-Message-ID: <"C8D6N1.0.rr1.K8Hbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7873 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 08:23 AM 6/4/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: >Craig Haynie wrote: >> >> Hello Greg! >> >> So, Greg, do you wake up every morning, run over to your workbench, put >> the ball back on your ramps and let it cycle a few times, just to make >> sure it still works? > >With my first RMOD, I got about 2 hours straight sleep over 4 days, >checked it every two hours. It was my new baby. After a while, I moved >it closer to the bedroom and just listened. > >Mow I am working on RMOD Mark II. No Noise, No Ramps. Just pure rotary >torque. Great news! Looking forward to hearing more on your RMOD Mark II! >> I know that's what I would do if I found an effect like this. :) >> >> Seriously, though, you ought to consider finding a place to keep it. Try >> to run it for as long as possible. See if it runs out. See if the ball >> magnetizes, or other anomalies occur in use. It could lead to a deeper >> understanding, or perhaps a simpler explanation of what's going on. >> >> Hasta, >> >> Craig Haynie >> ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com > >Hi Craig, > >In the SMOT system, using the "N" gauge track for the ball return, the >ball turns many times. I haven't seen a magnetised ball yet. I keep my >balls attached to a big ring magnet. Don't know if that has an effect >or not? > >Greg Hi Greg, Good design for the ball return with the "N" gauge track. I agree with you that the ball doesn't get magnetized to any degree to affect the SMOT operation. Just need a higher ramp end drop for a steeper slope track back to the start ramp. Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 00:31:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:17:51 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:17:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"FcFxH1.0.Tq7.UQHbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7875 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 08:14 AM 6/4/97 Greg Watson wrote: >Michael Randall wrote: >> [snip] >> In SMOT, I found (and probably others) that the ball will not start from the >> interior of the arrays. It needs to be sucked into the field. > >If you reduce the inter ramp linking distance, interior starts can be >done. Yes I agree. I think what Frank Stenger was asking was to be able to place the ball anywhere on the SMOT track for operation. I descibed the difference to Frank and the fact that there is no need for this in order for SMOT to work OU. >> The same [snip] >Hi Michael, > >Sounds like you are using different polarity arrays. > > >SN SN >SN SN >SN SN > >NS NS >NS NS >NS NS > >instead of > >SN SN >SN SN >SN SN > >SN SN >SN SN >SN SN > >In the first arrangement, the arrays from two linked SMOT ramps will >attract each other and in the second they will repel each other. > >The lower array arrangement is the one I use for linking. However I >have experimented with the first, but not too far as the magnets from >both arrays attract each other and lift off the side magnet supports. >Using the first arrangement, I got much better linking results, the >second linked ramp actually assists with the ball climbing the first >ramp. But I went back to the second as I thought it would cause less >problems overall. > >But hey, experiment with the first system. Just devise a way to hold >the magnets to the magnet supports. Blu-Tack ......... why didn't I >think of that! > > >Greg Hi Greg, I tried both configurations. The lower array works best also. Due to the strong magnet arrays I have they want to repel so the first ramp mag assay moves a little. A more permenant solution for my setup would be to bolt the assay to the base. In the mean time waiting for Blu-Tack! Michael X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 00:34:56 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:21:48 -0700 From: Bmd2323@aol.com Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:20:57 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"AlcGI3.0.Hy7.BUHbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3645 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Howdy! Supposedly Art Bell has pieces of whatever it was that crashed at Roswell back in the '50s and at least a couple hunks of it are layers of bismouth, magnesium, and a few other things. When these hunks are exposed to large electromagnetic fields they levi tate and this seems to bother conventional physics for some reason. Poor fellows. Bmd2323@aol.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 00:36:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 17:00:17 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Workstation Died Resent-Message-ID: <"gShKD3.0.2a2.EhHbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7877 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I got back from town about 2 hours ago (buying SMOT bits), logged in to get my mail, clicked on about the 6th or 7th mail item and the screen when blank, HD light went on and a dos message appeared saying that I could now power off the computer. Well, no boot. Looks like the boot sector and part of the fat are gone. While I don't believe in the men in black, this is a very strange hardware failure indeed! Anyone know of ways to zap a system via email? I will take the HD to a friend tomorrow and see what we can recover. I will still answer my email, but it might take awhile to regen my system. Some backups, but not much. There is around 2000 messages in the SMOT file. I don't want to loose them. Everything else I can recover or reconstruct. Life never was meant to be easy, was it?*!#!?* Not very happy, Greg PS: I have developed a screw driven magnet adjustment system that I am trying out at present. I seems to work well and holds adjustments much better than the pins. If it works out, I will include it as well as some of the magnetic field viewing paper in the SMOT Kits. That should make life a lot easier for the kit users. PPS: Also short ramps work MUCH better than long ramps, I am currently playing with a 4 magnet lond array and ramp systems that makes exiting a breeze. More later. Like bigger balls, shorter ramps look better. Sort of opposite to what you would expect, but then I did say some time ago that magnetic based Ou systems would follow reverse rules. Remember to BACKUP........................ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 00:32:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:30:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"E4qTV.0.uO2.ZdHbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7876 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 07:11 AM 6/3/97 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Michael - > >Thanks for sharing your results on these arrays. The direction the ball >travels through your arrays is not what I expected. Interesting about the >habits of the ball regarding where it gets stuck, too. > >I was playing with this a little bit last night. My SMOT balls are getting >magnetized, and the magnetism was definitely affecting their behavior >strongly where the fields were weak or well balanced. I need some ferrite >filled spheres or something, because magnetized balls give bizarre results >in weak-field experiments. Could you have been seeing some effects due to >this? Check your SMOT balls lately? > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Hi Rick, Yes, confirmed my results today and it still looks good. I also observed that with more than 50% overlap the ball accelerated more so than with only a 10% overlap. An 80% overlap was very strong and the ball raced up the field. My post to John Logajan had some additional notes. See also Hamdi's drawing. No problem with the ball becoming magnetized to influence the effects. Regards, Michael Randall X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 00:47:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:45:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Re: Workstation died Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 00:45:43 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"IOf053.0.Mq2.cqHbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3647 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, Having lost 100's of pieces of mail and other data in my recent computer trouble, I can TOTALLY sympathize! I will be praying for you tonight (and yes folks sometimes prayer DOES work). Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 01:15:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:01:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:00:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 Resent-Message-ID: <"CE6x62.0.7H1.A3Ibp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7878 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 02:04 PM 6/3/97 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Horace - > >Here's what I've been visualizing for the Cunningham inspired rotary Rogue >SMOT: > >\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ upper magnets (stator) > >====||===||===||==== rotating disc, seen edge on w/ embedded ferrite rods > >///////////////////// lower magnets (stator) > > >Rods might be good, as they look like balls from the side but link flux >through themselves well with the polarity of the magnets like the Gary >device which also uses a rod. > >Thing is, I just can't imagine any of this really working! You think??? > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Hi Rick, Great visualizing! I was also thinking about this today but with using the SMOT balls in the rotor. The rods is a good idea. This design could work if what I see on the linear track is correct. That being the ball only sees the next foreward magnet pair i ncreased field and not the end assay field. I built a pair of 1x23 parallel mag assay 190mm long and the ball traveled the lenght. Today also experimented with only one mag assay on one side parallel to the track to see if the ball would travel the whole lenght to the end (no up slope). It did. Wha t is unique is the ball moves only in one direction. Once at the end it gets locked up in the last magnet(s) field. In a regular bar magnet the ball would bounce back to the other end in back and forth oscilations until it stops in the middle of the bar m agnet. Me think Yes!!! Michael Randall X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 01:27:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Workstation Died Resent-Message-ID: <"pv1cp1.0.ES3.GPIbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7879 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, Sorry to hear of your HD blinking out :( Last time mine HD stopped operating I bought a Colorado Backup tape drive. They now have the re-writable cd's that are finally affordable that can store 4 GB and 2hr. of movie video. Thinking of picking one up. No , I haven't heard of any virus that can be transfered via e-mail. Most likely HD failure. They are good for 10,000 hrs? HD have lately also increased in size with better and faster access time. Praying for you, Michael At 05:00 PM 6/4/97 +0930, you wrote: >Hi All, > >I got back from town about 2 hours ago (buying SMOT bits), logged in to >get my mail, clicked on about the 6th or 7th mail item and the screen >when blank, HD light went on and a dos message appeared saying that I >could now power off the computer. > >Well, no boot. > >Looks like the boot sector and part of the fat are gone. > >While I don't believe in the men in black, this is a very strange >hardware failure indeed! Anyone know of ways to zap a system via email? > >I will take the HD to a friend tomorrow and see what we can recover. > >I will still answer my email, but it might take awhile to regen my >system. Some backups, but not much. There is around 2000 messages in >the SMOT file. I don't want to loose them. Everything else I can >recover or reconstruct. > >Life never was meant to be easy, was it?*!#!?* > > >Not very happy, > Greg > > >PS: I have developed a screw driven magnet adjustment system that I am >trying out at present. I seems to work well and holds adjustments much >better than the pins. If it works out, I will include it as well as >some of the magnetic field viewing paper in the SMOT Kits. That should >make life a lot easier for the kit users. > >PPS: Also short ramps work MUCH better than long ramps, I am currently >playing with a 4 magnet lond array and ramp systems that makes exiting a >breeze. More later. Like bigger balls, shorter ramps look better. >Sort of opposite to what you would expect, but then I did say some time >ago that magnetic based Ou systems would follow reverse rules. > >Remember to BACKUP........................ > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 01:47:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:32:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 02:38:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chevron arrangement Resent-Message-ID: <"UTaHd3.0.Mq1.iWIbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7880 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: --snip-- > The thing that got my attention with this is that each pair of magnets is > like an entire SMOT array - see? It's a SMOT ramp fractal. Each pair is > canted inwards at one end. But if you leave a wide gap between the arrays, > that is - place the arrays further away from the rail in the center, can > you see that the blue holes of the narrow end of one pair sort of blends in > with the blue hole at the wide end of the next pair? They're like a bunch > of linked ramps. ----snip---- > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > > Rick, By George, I think you "Saw/SEE" it too!!!!! It's There, (and as Tesla said "IT'S EVERYWHERE." :) se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX ps I like the Greg Watson 'V' better, but the parallel Multi-Stack is easiest to work with (rotory wise - that is ;-) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 02:18:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 02:03:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 18:30:55 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Rogue SMOT XY Plot Resent-Message-ID: <"oW1Og2.0.rL2.lzIbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7885 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Rogue Guys, Here is the XY plot through the middle of the Rogue SMOT. Greg Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\ROGUE-XY.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 02:11:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 02:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 18:36:59 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: HD is now working!!!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"Bpvw43.0.t14.A4Jbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7886 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Seems the fault went away. Tested the HD for 1 hour and NO faults found. Replugged ALL the caables, blew out the dust, checked PSU voltages and ripple, tapped a lot of stuff. No faults found??????? So much for my rock solid computer!!!!! I installed a second removeable HD for HIGH Speed backups. Everything is now BACKED UP. Heart slowing down, Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 02:44:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 02:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:38:42 +0800 (SGT) X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mpower Subject: Re: Chevron arrnagement Resent-Message-ID: <"dvE5b2.0.AT4._YJbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7888 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick Monteverde posted the following (edited for brevity) at 22:24 1997.06.03 -1000: > >Anyone have any idea where a guy could acquire a small supply of ferrite >powder? My driveway needs repaving... no, really - I want to try casting >some epoxy-ferrite spheres. I can take a silicone mold of a nice smooth >bearing, see how that works. I want to explore effects in the weaker >fields, but the slightly magnetized balls make that impossible. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > Go down to the shipyard and find someone who's 'chipping' a vessel prior to painting it - you might also look for a vessl being sandblasted - you can generally peel some old ferrites out of the the backwash. Another idea: get some old floppy discs and give them a whirl through a shredding machine. might not be as effective, though. ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 03:05:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 02:51:01 -0700 Date: 04 Jun 97 05:49:42 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Chevron arrnagement Resent-Message-ID: <"BZ8tz3.0.rT3.4gJbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7889 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick, > Anyone have any idea where a guy could acquire a small supply of > ferrite powder? Just pound down an antenna rod. Except ... they do saturate at low field strengths. I've got some high-flux density ferrite, but I think airmail would be a bit slow. But, Rick, why bother? If you can cast such things, you should use iron powder as you r material. No question of magnetisation, saturation, or losses worth a damn at these 'frequencies'. But at least with the ferrite antenna you get to use what I am sure is the favourite weapon of every true Vortexian - the four-pound lump hammer. Congratulations to Greg on the return of his HD!!! I have to apologise to Martin Sevior, to whom I accidentally assigned a post he didn't make - that one was from Robert Eachus. And on the matter of simulations indicating OU, it seems this is disputed. But I still think Greg is basing his designs on his mag simulations - which may or may not suggest anomalous behaviour, depending upon whom you ask. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 03:54:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:39:39 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 20:04:33 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT, Where are WE Now? Where are WE Going? Resent-Message-ID: <"cY5KN2.0.kY4.gNKbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7890 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Just a review on the SMOT project from my viewpoint : Achieved my many to date : 1) Single SMOT Ramp works. Start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm. >>>> At one time many said this was not possible!!!!!! 2) Multi linked SMOT Ramp works. Start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm, start at 0mm, climb to 12mm, drop to 0mm Some have achieved up to 6 linked ramps, my best is 4. I didn't try more. >>>> Again, even at this stage, some had doubts that linking would work. Next Stage to Achieve : 3) Multi SMOT Ramp linkage with incremental lift by 6mm overall (1.5mm per ramp) inclined ramp base method : Start at 0.0mm, climb to 13.5mm, drop to 1.5mm, Start at 1.5mm, climb to 15.0mm, drop to 3.0mm, Start at 3.0mm, climb to 16.5mm, drop to 4.5mm, Start at 4.5mm, climb to 18.0mm, drop to 0.0mm and roll away at least 100mm. >>>> Some can't believe this can be done. This can be done, I have done it. It is the door to closing. If you have achieved the 0,12,0,12,0 linking it only requires just a 12% increase in individual ramp height. I have got 15mm of lift out of a single SMOT ramp, so 13.5 is with-in the envelope . Mount the linked SMOT ramps on a base board and slowly lift the exit end while adjusting the ramps. At a 18mm final drop and a 6mm curved receptor on the lower ramp, the ball will roll away at least 100mm. When you get there and YOU can, closing is one small 0.5mm incremental lift increase away! At a 20mm final drop, the ball WILL return and loop via the "N" gauge track. >>>> This will cause the world to change. And you will have done it! BUT don't go too fast, use the ramps mounted firmly on a base board approach to gradually increase the final drop from 12mm to 18mm and then 20mm. Its the ONLY way. It can be done. My Very Best to YOU all, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 03:56:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:42:47 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 05:45:36 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Tesla, looking for answers Resent-Message-ID: <"DFLwS1.0.of4.cQKbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3652 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Hi Evan and others, > > Evan, thanks for the excellent synopsis of Tesla's thoughts on Free >Energy. I haven't seen some of those quotations before. >I haven't dug up the article by Nicholson yet, but what I remember >correlates with your quotes. Do you think that Tesla at any point actually >had an O/U device working, or was he working from his supernormal >visualization ability to describe possible machines? I haven't seen any >concrete evidence that he had any working device. Yes, I know about his >"radiant energy reciever" patent, but noone has ever seen that demonstrated >as far as I know... > > Fred Dear Fred and others, Don't know if Tesla had an O/U or not. For such an "electric" mind, Tesla was something of an "iceberg" -- i.e., it seems there was far more in his mind than was visible "above the surface." Naturally, I would love to know what papers the FBI confiscate d immediately after his death. Does anyone remember a news blurb (perhaps c. 1975) about an elderly gentleman living in Canada (I think Toronto) filing a report with Canadian security agents to the effect that "he had been approached by Soviet agents seeking papers thought to be in his possession." The news blurb went on to report that the elderly gentleman was a former lab assistant to Nikola Tesla. I never saw any additional news regarding the above. Evan X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 17:10:39 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 17:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 12:06 NZST X-Sender: srae@shoppe.mlb.planet.gen.nz To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: srae@mlb.planet.gen.nz (Stuart Rae) Subject: Re: Re: Bedini Questions/Charge Density Resent-Message-ID: <"4bu7n1.0.JS3.88Bbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3637 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph E Griffin wrote; >So the total energy (Etotal) has been cut in half. It went from 50 to 25 >micro-joules. Where did the energy go? It got dissipated in the internal >resistance of the capacitors. No matter how low the resistance is, you will >still loose the same amount of energy when doing this experiment. snip and M Powers wrote; >energy is a function of charge density: >you just connected an empty room to a full one >the energy lost was dissipated across the internal resistance, >but the actual point is you simply halved the charge density, >said charge density being the basis for the total energy in the system. > snip and Fred Epps wrote; > Is this loss in the caps really from their internal resistance? I was >under the impression that capacitive energy storage was in itself >lossless..and it seems odd that the metal resistance would always reduce >the energy by half. I confess that I also have some difficulty in understanding why this energy loss is attributed to its dissipation across the capacitor's "internal" resistance. While the general explanation would seem to be reasonable at first glance, I find it more diffi cult to understand, when charge is transferred in an alternative manner. For example, it is known that when a capacitor is charged through a series resistance in a number of equally increasing voltage steps 'n', the energy dissipated in the circuit resistance is inversely proportional to the number of voltage steps. And as the number of steps tends to infinity, the energy dissipated tends to zero. That is, it now becomes .5 CV^2/n and the energy delivered by the source becomes, .5 CV^2(1+1/n). So why then is the "loss" of energy attributed to its dissipation across the circuit resistance? This is not a facetcious question: And if anyone can give me a logical explanation, I'd be most grateful. (Or where have I misunderstood the implications of t he above equations?) SR X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 00:18:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:17:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 21:15:07 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 Resent-Message-ID: <"HkmIO1.0.5a3.lVcbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7940 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris - > So we've now got four *very* carefully made > 12.5*12.5mm channel ramps [...] Sounds good, Chris. I'm glad Soo is getting involved in this and having success. I'm going to be quite busy for a few days, so my own smotting is going to be on the shelf for a bit. Good luck. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 06:26:26 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 06:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:22:48 +0100 From: Geoff Greaves Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk Organization: Computer Cafes Limited To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: skin effect Resent-Message-ID: <"lBP9w3.0.MG1.KoMbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3653 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > > --------------------- > Forwarded message: > Subj: skin effect > Date: 97-06-02 17:12:06 EDT > From: HLafonte > To: Newman-L@emachine.com > > Evan, > I haven't read everything about the wire issue, but just in case someone > hasn't explained it, the current travels on the surface of the wire (skin > effect), and stranded wire has more surface area than a solid wire of same > cross section. This is the reason for less resistance to current flow. > Butch LaFonte > I don't know where this thread originated so I may be repeating info, but from hi-fi research I recall that the 'skin-effect' is frequency related; the higher the frequency then more surface area is an advantage. Hence multi-stranded speaker cable. Avoida nce of interference between low and high frequency currents taking different paths along a conductor are the reason for using separate cables to low and high speaker units in recent equipment. Cheers, geoff X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 07:23:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:05:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:06:15 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chevron arrangement References: <33948501.F423CD9A@verisoft.com.tr> <33949B5C.2C58@microtronics.com.au> <3394F063.2F61@skypoint.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"rkcy52.0.pp2.xONbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7892 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com John Logajan wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar gave us the chevron ascii graphics. I added some field > lines. > (snip) > None of these look like useful O/U arrangements (of course, > neither does Greg Watson's.) > My simple chevron toy supports your conclusion, John! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 07:25:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:17:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "John Steck" Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:09:30 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Hard Drive Killer Resent-Message-ID: <"dT8Tw2.0.iF3.AaNbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7893 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Best defense against hard drive failure is a regulated power supply. Dips, lags, surges, and spikes all seriously impact the overall life of your system and it's components (especially hard drives). It is highly recommended that all connected computer e quipment be plugged into a universal power supply or a line conditioner and not directly into the power grid. It is also recommended that a separate supply or conditioner be used for all printers as many spikes are created on site by the heating elements in them. (Greg- your printer was probably mad at you for feeding it cheap paper!) You would be very suprised by how variable and nasty the typical supply can get and still be regarded by you local utility as 'normal'. Backups only repair the problem o nce it happens and down time is usually the biggest expense! Good luck recovering the data. 8^) APC makes good equipment. More info at: -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 07:31:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:23:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "John Steck" Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:15:32 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"BQ6K13.0.5S3.0fNbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7894 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Jun 4, 3:54am, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Does the N-rail sound practical? Are some of the > cars plastic? I haven't even checked them out yet. N-scale stuff is a pain on large fingers! HO-scale stuff is easier to handle, and more widely available and less expensive (at least around here). Most all of it is plastic these days...... -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 07:31:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:24:49 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: the Cloak of Complexity References: Resent-Message-ID: <"OI77R2.0.wV3.3hNbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7895 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace Heffner wrote: > > > Well, we don't have long to wait to find out, at least about SMOT. Greg > has published how to close the loop. Any loop closings attempted yet? > Yeh, Horace! And I'm still waiting for Scott to get a "clean" same-level roll-a-way with his SMOTs. Frank Stenger - both feet on a ladder in the kitchen. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 07:41:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:26:26 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:26:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: vortex-l @eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"t6wRs2.0.s84.FiNbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7896 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick Monteverde (monteverde@worldnet.att.net) said: > Wow. Well, maybe it's time to abandon the ball for a few > experiments and try a SMOT car - some little low friction > non-steel cart than can ride on a track and carry a cargo > consisting of a ferrite rod or maybe a chevron of magnets. I > passed a hobby store tonight, but had to get to a metting so I > didn't have tiome to stop. Does the N-rail sound practical? Are > some of the cars plastic? I haven't even checked them out yet. Excellent idea. But start with brass trucks with a payload of one ball bearing. If necessary you can arrange the "cart" so that the ball bearing is carried directly between the front two wheels, with a non-ferrous payload in the back for balance. If necessary to "duplicate" all the characteristics of the current device, drill a hole through a ball bearing and thread the axle through--this will give you approximately the same amount of rotational inertia. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 07:58:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 18:32:49 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Rogue SMOT XY Plot Resent-Message-ID: <"D4tuD3.0.cs4.f6Obp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7901 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, thank you lot. I did not very carefully read the previous literature about the sims, but this XY graph is more realistic when Y axis is interpreted as Flux Density gradient (dB/dX) instead of flux density (B). If it is so the integral of the gradient is positive inside and the flux is always increased in the X direction (start to exit). After looking the sims I made a magnetic probe to measure the strength and the direction of the fields. It is a small Nd cylinderic magnet of 5 mm diameter and 3 mm height. I fixed it radially on a pen point. I both observed the the torque on the magnet while by forcing the poles making angles to the field and the overall forces applied to the probe. I made a setup of 2 x 10 magnets of total 15cm long arrays. I arranged individual magnet angles to 45 degree to the track. The distance between arrays is 25mm. Probing with the ball first showed that the middle way on the track have zero field ingredient., And not forwarding the ball. The Nd magnet probe also show the strengh of the field (the torque and the linear forces)dis not dropping anywhere inside the track. The probe also showed the polarity of the field inverse just before the start point. As a result static examination of the field give me nodirect information about prabable non conservative effects. I think a ball rolling experimet on a longer than 50 cm arrays will give unambigius result about the energy conservation criteria. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 07:37:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:33:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: gw atson@microtronics.com.au, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: HD is now working!!!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"g7eoW1.0.iv3.DqNbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7897 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Don't forget your "modern" computer almost certainly has non-parity RAM that is susceptible to alpha particles. And no, the manufacturer is not being cheap. With modern DRAMs, the probability of an incorrect parity check, or even of an incorrect EDA C correction is higher than that of the memory having a temporary glitch. Just accept the fact that one in every few hundred trillion memory references will fail. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 07:42:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: 04 Jun 97 10:35:38 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: the Cloak of Complexity Resent-Message-ID: <"6ogy41.0.d04.qsNbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7898 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hey guys, >One foot on the ground - Scott > > One foot in the air - Horace Yes to both. The man I most respected in computer design once told me you have to keep both feet in the mud, and your head in the clouds. He was right about that. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 10:14:27 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:01:21 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:00:24 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Curved Magnetic Ramps Resent-Message-ID: <"HVJsx2.0.xo3.VzPbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3654 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, If your are interested in Qfield simulations of a Curved Magnetic Ramps which shows magnetic field display, graphics of Flux density and Energy density along the path of a steel ball....look at : http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/rgen2mfd.htm Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 11:27:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:16:07 -0700 From: BBowyer744@aol.com Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:15:14 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-L@eskimo.com cc: BBowyer744@aol.com Subject: What can I do with a caduceus coil? Resent-Message-ID: <"azLaz3.0.0F.c3Rbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3655 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I just made a caduceus coil, but I don't know what to do with it. Anyone got any ideas for uses such as time travel,anti-gravity,etc.? Is there anything that 2 neon sign transformers and a magnatron with a 2KV transformer can do in conjuction with a c aduceus coil? Thanks X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 12:00:02 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 20:48:01 +0200 X-Sender: harti@shell2.ba.best.com (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) Cc: Bmd2323@aol.com Resent-Message-ID: <"80BVc2.0.rj6.VhRbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3656 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Howdy! > >Supposedly Art Bell has pieces of whatever it was that crashed at Roswell >back in the '50s and at least a couple hunks of it are layers of bismouth, >magnesium, and a few other things. When these hunks are exposed to large >electromagnetic fields they levitate Did you see that, or is that just "hear and talk" ??? and this seems to bother conventional >physics for some reason. Poor fellows. > >Bmd2323@aol.com Please let me know.Thanks ! Regards, Stefan. > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 16:10:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:07:42 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Ben Tammetta" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:04:30 +0000 Subject: My SMOTS don't link anymore? Reply-to: ben@tammetta.com Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"nMLzI1.0.KB3.zKVbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7912 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, Epitaxy wrote: > BTW: I did managed to get 4 NDFeB SMOT ramps linked reliably with great > effort, but did not close the loop. The "leakage" attraction from the Do you have pictures... I have linked 2... But when I built more and reconnected the old ones none worked... I can't figure out why they will no longer work... (linked) nothing has significantly changed... (slight adjustments maybe... ...very slight) The 2 ramps work independently of one another fairly well... but when I slide them together.. the second ramp fails completely... the ball will not move up the track........ the 1st ramp nullifies the second in some way, totally distorts the field or weakens it. I have gone back to look at my pictures.. to verify my arrangments are the same as before... and tried adjusting for hours. I''m baffled Any pointers? Greg ? Why did my first one work? http://www.clubelite.com/fe ben@clubelite.com ############################ # Ben Tammetta # # ben@interactive.ibm.com # ############################ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 13:00:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 12:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:04:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: Bmd2323@aol.com Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"nLgFa3.0.xv1.YaSbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3657 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Stefan Hartmann wrote: Bmd2323@aol.com > >Supposedly Art Bell has pieces of whatever it was that crashed at Roswell > >back in the '50s and at least a couple hunks of it are layers of bismouth, > >magnesium, and a few other things. When these hunks are exposed to large > >electromagnetic fields they levitate > Did you see that, or is that just "hear and talk" ??? Stefan, I too "Heard the 'Talk Show' on which ART BELL mentioned this! Art Bell's Talk show is one of the larger in the Nation (4th I believe most listened in that Time slot (midnight to 5am here)) Say, GREG, if your listening, He has satelite link ups for his show and starts EACH Show with from the East Coast to the west from the Top of canada to South america to (outstreched Islands around the globe) AND AUSTRIALA... So, you should/could be able to get it in the afternoon (i guess) between 2pm - 7pm AUS TIME +/- :) Using an 'ol globe here with a little metal hour disk on top to figure your Time Zone ... -------------------- Anyway, I 'browsed' his website (recommended Greg, as he Wants ANYTHING O/U) and found a spectrograph .gif of the supposadly Alien Material.. It was unique in how closley some of the metal were "side-by side" in spacing with 'peaks being identical' except in the center. It was like it was composed of every 3'rd element all along the table of elements - and increased in the center: I'll try an ascii rep here: : ::: ::: ::::: :__:__:__:______::_:__::::::::_::_:__:__:__:__:___________ Silver/Copper/Bismouth/Galinium/ & others composing the center. He should still have it on line, (http://www.artbell.com) as during the 'airing' of the show he almost 'dared the men in balck-suits' to come and visit him knowing how large his listening audience was (for a shielding I guess). Whatever it was or from where ever it came, all agreed it was 'strange' material indeed! > and this seems to bother conventional > >physics for some reason. Poor fellows. > > > >Bmd2323@aol.com > > Please let me know.Thanks ! > > Regards, Stefan. > > -- > Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann > Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany > Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 > email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com > > Hope that helps a bit. ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 13:03:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:03:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "SAM GORDON" To: Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:05:12 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"bfksL3.0.T52.0eSbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3658 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com There are pictures of this metal at the artbell website www.artbell.com You may have to search through the page a bit, but the pics are there. ---------- > From: Stefan Hartmann > To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com > Cc: Bmd2323@aol.com > Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) > Date: Wednesday, June 04, 1997 2:48 PM > > >Howdy! > > > >Supposedly Art Bell has pieces of whatever it was that crashed at Roswell > >back in the '50s and at least a couple hunks of it are layers of bismouth, > >magnesium, and a few other things. When these hunks are exposed to large > >electromagnetic fields they levitate > > > > Did you see that, or is that just "hear and talk" ??? > > > and this seems to bother conventional > >physics for some reason. Poor fellows. > > > >Bmd2323@aol.com > > Please let me know.Thanks ! > > Regards, Stefan. > > > > > > > > > -- > Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann > Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany > Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 > email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 14:07:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:59:18 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Cc: BBowyer744@aol.com Subject: Re: What can I do with a caduceus coil? Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"g1lkl1.0.Au3.XVTbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3659 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi! I'm exploring cad coils for similar purposes myself. I'm exploring cad coils and bifiliar coils specifically for time travel. I would reccomend reading the paper on the field resonant antigravity coil, as well as Bill Beatty's piece on domensional shi fts. Mr. Beatty suggests that using some large coils that are modulated as a place to start for possible time travel. I would suggest even using carefully wound cad coils, and one or several fairly stable rf sources to modulate the coils. I managed to pic k up a couple of morse code transmitters that I've found quite useful in my experiments. Hope this helps smome. Take care, all. John On Wed, 4 Jun 1997 BBowyer744@aol.com wrote: > > I just made a caduceus coil, but I don't know what to do with it. Anyone > got any ideas for uses such as time travel,anti-gravity,etc.? Is there > anything that 2 neon sign transformers and a magnatron with a 2KV transformer > can do in conjuction with a caduceus coil? > > > Thanks > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 14:17:54 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:16:49 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:22:49 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"WlCrN.0.OI5._iTbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3660 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Opps : Correction !! On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Steve Ekwall wrote: > increased in the center: I'll try an ascii rep here: > > : > ::: > ::: > ::::: > :__:__:__:______::_:__::::::::_::_:__:__:__:__:___________ > I remembered Wrong (sorry) just got back from the artbell page and this was www.artbell.com/images/chip-f1.gif (mostly Aluminum). > Silver/Copper/Bismuth/Galenium/ & others composing the center. > > He should still have it on line, (http://www.artbell.com) > Whatever it was or from where ever it came, all agreed it was 'strange' > material indeed! Stefan, Try www.artbell.com/images/skin-f2.gif & skin6.jpg for Bismuth... This images are pointed at from the air-show 6.4.96(!) and the story is www.artbell.com/rosreprt.html ..... whew.. Corrected on a 25mghz machine here took some time on-line (sorry about that).. p.s. Art's page has a "SEARCH" which failed under "roswell" to find it, but you can find it with "metal" in the search .. look for the 6.4.96 airing. se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX no spell checke r -ok :( X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 14:27:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:27:06 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darknet.net: Host pool50.primeline.net [207.81.5.50] claimed to be bmts.com.bmts.com Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 17:25:53 -0400 From: Steve Reply-To: darklord@darknet.net Organization: DarkNet Technologies To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: re: Workstation Died Resent-Message-ID: <"u2hYO3.0.Xf5.fsTbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3661 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > Hi All, > > I got back from town about 2 hours ago (buying SMOT bits), logged in to > get my mail, clicked on about the 6th or 7th mail item and the screen > when blank, HD light went on and a dos message appeared saying that I > could now power off the computer. > > Well, no boot. > > Looks like the boot sector and part of the fat are gone. The same thing happened to me about a week ago, I was chatting on IRC with a couple friends, and reading some mail, then my computer just shut down and would not reboot. I thought maybe someone on IRC had nuked my connection or something, but I guess not. . (if it was, I definately want a copy of that script/program!! heh..) my computer was gone for almost a week. I managed to recover a few files, but I had to reformat the HD. I lost all my emails too... :( I also lost a big english essay.. yup, I failed t hat project.. I don't think the teacher liked my excuse... heh.. > Remember to BACKUP........................ definately.. ttyl -Steve King darklord@darknet.net p.s. I'd like to write something that actually belongs on this list, eg. free energy etc.. but since I'm fairly new to this area of discussion, anything I'd say would probably make me sound like a moron.. :) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 14:28:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:26:26 -0400 (EDT) From: woods@most.weird.com (Greg A. Woods) To: Steve Ekwall Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, Bmd2323@aol.com Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) References: <199706041848.UAA05574@atom.bbtt.com> Reply-To: woods@weird.com (Greg A. Woods) Organization: Planix, Inc.; Toronto, Ontario; Canada Resent-Message-ID: <"3qnMS.0.q-4.ZtTbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3662 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com [ On Wed, June 4, 1997 at 14:04:46 (-0600), Steve Ekwall wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) > > Anyway, I 'browsed' his website (recommended Greg, as he Wants ANYTHING > O/U) and found a spectrograph .gif of the supposadly Alien Material.. > It was unique in how closley some of the metal were "side-by side" in > spacing with 'peaks being identical' except in the center. It was like it > was composed of every 3'rd element all along the table of elements - and > increased in the center: I'll try an ascii rep here: > > : > ::: > ::: > ::::: > :__:__:__:______::_:__::::::::_::_:__:__:__:__:___________ > > Silver/Copper/Bismouth/Galinium/ & others composing the center. I didn't find any mention of any normal spectrograph images (they claim to have used "energy dispersive spectroscopy" with a high-power scanning electron microscope), though the EDS diagrams resemble yours as far as general graphs might, so perhaps I'm lo oking in the wrong place, but anyway the report on the supposedly alien materials is at: http://www.artbell.com/rosreprt.html This report does *not* mention copper or gallium, though it does say bismuth is a major component of the brittle "multi-layer" pieces. Magnesium supposedly makes up the primary content of the other side along with small amounts of zinc. NOTHING was mentioned about "every 3rd element"..... The less interesting pieces from, the p.o.v. of their composition, were nearly pure aluminium with small amounts of iron, manganese, calcium and silicon. BTW, silver, copper and bismuth are all on different *rows* of the periodic table, and if your diagram is as you describe it these elements could not be clustered in the centre. Only copper and gallium appear near to each other in the "table of the eleme nts". Pu-leeze get your facts right people! -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods Planix, Inc. ; Secrets of the Weird X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 14:43:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:42:43 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darknet.net: Host pool50.primeline.net [207.81.5.50] claimed to be bmts.com.bmts.com Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 17:41:24 -0400 From: Steve Reply-To: darklord@darknet.net Organization: DarkNet Technologies To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: What can I do with a caduceus coil? References: Resent-Message-ID: <"CPh2s3.0.zh6.H5Ubp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3663 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com John R. Tooker wrote: > > Hi! I'm exploring cad coils for similar purposes myself. I'm exploring cad > coils and bifiliar coils specifically for time travel. I would reccomend > reading the paper on the field resonant antigravity coil, as well as Bill > Beatty's piece on domensional shifts. Mr. Beatty suggests that using some > large coils that are modulated as a place to start for possible time > travel. I would suggest even using carefully wound cad coils, and one or > several fairly stable rf sources to modulate the coils. I managed to pick > up a couple of morse code transmitters that I've found quite useful in my > experiments. > Hope this helps smome. Take care, all. > John Time travel.. cool. :) Now that's the kind of stuff I like to learn about, unfortunately they don't teach that stuff in physics class.. heh.. I've read both of those articles, and I am considering building the resonant gravity coil thing mentioned on his page, and I was wondering if anyone else has built one, and what kinds of effects are observed. The article mentioned something like "sp ontaneous materialization of ?".. what does that mean? Do things like that actually happen with this device? Anyway, I'm a beginner with electronics etc, but I'd like to try and build some sort of device, anti-grav, free energy, etc. I've read almost all the articles on Bill Beaty's page, and the dimensional shifting one was very interesting. Does anyone have any other recommendations for articles I could read, or ideas for experiments? Anything would be greatly appreciated. :) thanks.. ttyl -Steve darklord@darknet.net X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 15:02:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darknet.net: Host pool50.primeline.net [207.81.5.50] claimed to be bmts.com.bmts.com Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 17:59:55 -0400 From: Steve Reply-To: darklord@darknet.net Organization: DarkNet Technologies To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) References: <199706041848.UAA05574@atom.bbtt.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"6jlqR2.0.lW6.JNUbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3664 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Stefan Hartmann wrote: > > >Howdy! > > > >Supposedly Art Bell has pieces of whatever it was that crashed at Roswell > >back in the '50s and at least a couple hunks of it are layers of bismouth, > >magnesium, and a few other things. When these hunks are exposed to large > >electromagnetic fields they levitate > > Did you see that, or is that just "hear and talk" ??? > There are video clips of these pieces on Art's web page.. They're in the section called "Arts Parts". http://www.artbell.com/roscrash.html#testvideo -Steve darklord@darknet.net X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 15:35:32 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:35:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:01:50 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: skin effect Resent-Message-ID: <"2At7W3.0.vK.hsUbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3667 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >> >> --------------------- >> Forwarded message: >> Subj: skin effect >> Date: 97-06-02 17:12:06 EDT >> From: HLafonte >> To: Newman-L@emachine.com >> > >I don't know where this thread originated so I may be repeating info, >but from hi-fi research I recall that the 'skin-effect' is frequency >related; the higher the frequency then more surface area is an >advantage. Hence multi-stranded speaker cable. Avoidance of interference >between low and high frequency currents taking different paths along a >conductor are the reason for using separate cables to low and high >speaker units in recent equipment. > >Cheers, geoff >> Evan, >> I haven't read everything about the wire issue, but just in case someone >> hasn't explained it, the current travels on the surface of the wire (skin >> effect), and stranded wire has more surface area than a solid wire of same >> cross section. This is the reason for less resistance to current flow. >> Butch LaFonte Interestingly enough, tests have shown (but I can't remember who did them) that although the RF current flows on the outside of the wire, it also wants to flow on the outside of the entire bundle of stranded wires as well. The tests showed that if the individual wires were bare copper, the current tended to "jump" from strand to strand as each individual strand "dived" into the mass of the entire wire. The RF current "wants" to stay on the outside of the entire conducto r. Although the initial RF resistance for clean copper was fairly low, as the wire aged and corroded, the effective RF resistance increased greatly due to the inter-strand corrosion. However, if the wire strands were insulated individually, the initial RF resistance was usually higher than that of the bare-conductor wire mentioned above, but it stayed constant because the wire did not corrode with age and exposure to the elements. The general result was that if you used a solid wire with the same surface area as the combined area of the stranded wire, you would achieve the same, or lower, RF resistance. Further, as the wire corroded, the RF loss increased less than did the loss for the stranded wire. Ralph Hartwell X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 15:27:14 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:26:07 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 07:36:41 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Ramp SIzes Resent-Message-ID: <"4eaS9.0.n61.yjUbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3666 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have attached a Gif showing why shorter ramps work better than longer ramps. The theory is based on actual experimentation. It assumes the top and bottom spacing are the same between the two ramps. Basically it goes like this : We compare two SMOT ramps, one with an 8 magnet long array and a second with a 4 magnet long array. The spacing at the top and bottom on the second shorter ramp are the same as the longer ramp. We build the longer ramp first and observe its operational characteristics. In other words we get it to work. We then build the second shorter ramp and compare. The first thing we notice is that the second ramps slope is twice as steep as the first ramps slope. How can we ever get a ball up that steeper ramp as we had to spend a lot of time adjusting the first long but not as steep ramp? When we place a ball on the shorter ramp, we find that not only does it climb the steeper incline but it also does it faster. Weird? This is because the shorter ramp causes more flux differential to be developed across the ball. Study the attached Gif to understand why. Pull is related to the square of the flux differential across the ball. This means that by shortening the ramp by half, we now have 4 times as much pull on the ball. The ramp is now twice as steep so half of the new energy is lost there. But we still have extra energy. So what to do with this extra energy? We also have re duced frictional losses as well! We increase the spacing of the magnets at the top and achieve a easier to exit ramp! Increasing the spacing of the top magnets drops the strength of the top "Bounce back magnetic wall" and makes ALL the adjustments much easier. Increasing the ramps incline has an additional effect in that it creates a increased spacing between the top of the first ramps magnet arrays and the bottom of the second ramps magnet arrays. This improves ramp linking as less adjustments are required to get a link working. Hope all this makes sense and helps those of you having linking problems. Remember, our goal at the monent is NOT to link ramps in a circle, but to use linked ramps to INCREASE the final release height and get a equal height, level ball rollaway. Greg Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\LONG-SHO.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 15:33:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:31:11 -0700 From: "Cyber Computer Networks Ltd." To: Subject: SMOT Kits Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:20:47 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"VYpHf2.0.UQ1.joUbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7908 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, Sorry to hear about your HD failure. Want a new 2.6 fujitsu IDE mode 4, I'll swap it for a working closed loop SMOT kit :) I cannot get my ramp to drop the ball on the flat and run out. It must be dropped below the ramp start height and I am worried that during the drop through the blue hole it loses some energy to the pull back up effect. So if I cannot get if to run out flat then there is little point in building a two ramp version yet or is it? But it does go uphill about 8 mm! or about 3 degrees from the level. I am using two sims made of computer case blanking plates with 6 off 2cm circular fridge magnets taped to them. These two sims are rubber banded to a 11cm piece of 22mm copper tube, with six pieces of 4mm balsa strips to pack the sims away from the tubin g, 4 at one end and 2 at the other. 19mm steel ball bearing. Will the SMOT kits run as a closed loop? What is the longest the SMOT kit has run for? I would like to have a go at the RMOD device so will you be posting any details on this device yet or near future? Does the RMOD use curved sims? Does the RMOD use a series of ball bearings mounted on a rotor. How is the work on the RMOD 2 coming on? If it is running how long has it run for ? If I could get a closed loop running for more than 1 rev then I would chuffed to bits and probaly not sleep for a week, and I look forward to that day, it would be like all my birthdays and christmas's arriving at once. PS Has anyone had any success with the chevron arrangement? Rob King (shared internet connection) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 15:22:34 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:21:52 -0700 From: "Steve J. Sibert" Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:21:35 -0600 References: <199706040454.AAA17478@mail3.voicenet.com> To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dennis Lee promises a free energy demonstration July 10 Resent-Message-ID: <"FG6ZV2.0.fn._fUbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3665 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Jun 4, 12:49am, Eric Krieg -voicenet wrote: > Subject: Dennis Lee promises a free energy demonstration July 10 > > hey free people, > > There are big plans for a Better World Technology (BWT) show in Colorado > Springs to compete with the Tesla society meeting also honoring the > controversial inventors birthday July 10-13. > > Eric > Hi Eric, I live in Colorado Springs, and I'm wondering if you have the details on this BWT show. I've been to your web site (with those colors, it VERY hard to read), and I'd like to see this guy for myself. When you went, did it cost anything? Thanks for your help. Steve Sibert -- ======================================================= = Steve J. Sibert Internet: sibert@dsai.com = = Decision-Science Applications, Inc. (719) 593-5974 = ======================================================= X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 15:52:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 02:25:37 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: SMOT Ramp SIzes Resent-Message-ID: <"1PbCE3.0.xj.x1Vbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7910 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Morning, My magnets sizes are 40 x 25 x 10. Did you recommend 80 mm long stacks instead of 120 mm which I am using currently? Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 15:36:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:33:50 -0700 Date: 04 Jun 97 18:32:08 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 Resent-Message-ID: <"2OFMQ3.0.Mb1.BrUbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7909 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick, For what it's worth, and it is probably worth very little, my sporadic ventures into the chevron arrangements have shown fascinating effects - but nothing weird-looking when I've studied them more carefully. I'm not denying anyone else's findings, simply saying that I can't see them. On the other hand the behaviour of my primitive SMOT ramps *is* very odd indeed. Naturally I'm making no claims for genuine weirdness, but I repeat that nobody with an enquiring mind could (after seeing it go) fail to be determined to get to the bottom o f what is happening. I concur entirely with Greg when he says that you get a spine-tingler and realise that (a) the end result is inevitably a "weird" machine, and (b) that (a) is not possible. And there were two of us watching it do its thing. Soo isn't easily impressed - as you will have seen on the CIS forums she has frequented - and she was seriously impressed, the more so since *she* got it to work. As a result, we've decided that our main problem is the "string and sealing-wax" nature of the design. Maybe Greg can handle all those pins, and balls flying everywhere upsetting carefully aligned magnets. We can't. So we've now got four *very* careful ly made 12.5*12.5mm channel ramps - polished tracks, S-bend exits, linking notches, the whole bit; and tomorrow we'll make new bases from Perspex (polymethylmethacrylate), with upwards-projecting bolts with wing-nuts to secure the magnet-support plates. At least we should then have a controllable device. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 16:35:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:35:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:38:09 -0500 (CDT) From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: re: Workstation Died Reply-To: w9sz@prairienet.org Resent-Message-ID: <"8CXLi1.0.Gm4.akVbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3670 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > >Greg Watson wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I got back from town about 2 hours ago (buying SMOT bits), logged in to >> get my mail, clicked on about the 6th or 7th mail item and the screen >> when blank, HD light went on and a dos message appeared saying that I >> could now power off the computer. >> >> Well, no boot. >> >> Looks like the boot sector and part of the fat are gone. > >The same thing happened to me about a week ago, I was chatting on IRC >with a couple friends, and reading some mail, then my computer just shut >down and would not reboot. I thought maybe someone on IRC had nuked my >connection or something, but I guess not.. (if it was, I definately want >a copy of that script/program!! heh..) my computer was gone for almost a >week. I managed to recover a few files, but I had to reformat the HD. I >lost all my emails too... :( I also lost a big english essay.. yup, I >failed that project.. I don't think the teacher liked my excuse... heh.. > >> Remember to BACKUP........................ > >definately.. > >ttyl > >-Steve King >darklord@darknet.net > I'd just like to mention that my computer has 2 HD's in it, the second drive is not used to boot from but has a lot of programs on it (Qfield among them). The second disk crashed a few days ago. I had everything backed up but decided to take a look at th e drive. As I worked in electronics repair for quite a few years, I am familiar with the "cold solder joint" connections that develop around pc board patterns, especially around parts under stress such as connector jacks. Surprise, the jack for the cable to the HD had about half a dozen of them! (Under a magnifying glass, they appear as circles cracked in the solder). So I resoldered all the connector pins on the HD pc board, and it once again works fine. Just a suggestion that may save some trouble some day. Zack -- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 16:32:49 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:31:58 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 08:50:00 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: The GOAL References: <970604223207_100433.1541_BHG72-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"5Mecx2.0.S84.dhVbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3669 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Rick, > > For what it's worth, and it is probably worth very little, my sporadic > ventures into the chevron arrangements have shown fascinating effects - > but nothing weird-looking when I've studied them more carefully. I'm > not denying anyone else's findings, simply saying that I can't see them. > > On the other hand the behaviour of my primitive SMOT ramps *is* very > odd indeed. Naturally I'm making no claims for genuine weirdness, but I > repeat that nobody with an enquiring mind could (after seeing it go) > fail to be determined to get to the bottom of what is happening. I > concur entirely with Greg when he says that you get a spine-tingler and > realise that (a) the end result is inevitably a "weird" machine, and (b) > that (a) is not possible. > > And there were two of us watching it do its thing. Soo isn't easily > impressed - as you will have seen on the CIS forums she has frequented > - and she was seriously impressed, the more so since *she* got it to > work. > > As a result, we've decided that our main problem is the "string and > sealing-wax" nature of the design. Maybe Greg can handle all those > pins, and balls flying everywhere upsetting carefully aligned > magnets. I can't either, see below. > We can't. So we've now got four *very* carefully made > 12.5*12.5mm channel ramps - polished tracks, S-bend exits, linking > notches, the whole bit; and tomorrow we'll make new bases from > Perspex (polymethylmethacrylate), with upwards-projecting bolts with > wing-nuts to secure the magnet-support plates. > > At least we should then have a controllable device. A more controllable device. > Chris Hi Chris, The latest improvement in the SMOT ramp kits is screw adjustable spacing and SHORTED ramps. Please read my earlier posting on ramp length. Chris, remember the point of linking SMOT ramps is NOT to drive the ball further along but to use incremental lift increases to achieve a increased final lift and drop height that will result in a ball rollaway. It doesn't really matter how many ramps yo u use, but the less the better. I can get a rollaway with 2 ramps. I find with my original ramp design, I need approx 18mm final lift and drop height to get a 100mm ball rollaway. Seems you need about 1.5 x the diameter of the ball drop to do this. I agree with better mechanical stability, things get better. I found that in mounting the ramps on a flat board, things improve out of sight and the board is the ideal way to increase drop height by SLOWLY incresing the elevation at the exit end. Try it, it works. And REMEMBER the GOAL. Increased final drop through small incremental ramp lifts to achieve a equal height, level ball rollaway to 100mm. THEN a 1.5 to 2mm increase in drop height. THEN use the "N" gauge ball return system to close. It WORKS! Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 16:37:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:37:10 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 09:04:51 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: My SMOTS don't link anymore? References: <199706042307.QAA12977@mx1.eskimo.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"ynsoi.0.l05.XmVbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3671 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ben Tammetta wrote: > > Hi, > > Epitaxy wrote: > > BTW: I did managed to get 4 NDFeB SMOT ramps linked reliably with great > > effort, but did not close the loop. The "leakage" attraction from the > > Do you have pictures... I have linked 2... But when I built more and > reconnected the old ones none worked... > > I can't figure out why they will no longer work... (linked) > nothing has significantly changed... > (slight adjustments maybe... ...very slight) > > The 2 ramps work independently of one another fairly well... but when > > I slide them together.. the second ramp fails completely... the ball will > not move up the track........ the 1st ramp nullifies the second in > some way, totally distorts the field or weakens it. Suggest the positions of the magnets on the ramps (up and down) have altered. This sound like a case of the linked ramps being too close. There is an optimal distance for linking. Too close and the first ramp is effected too much to adjust out, too far and the second ramps mag field is not strong enough to pull the ball away from the first. It your inter ramp linking is fixed physically, I suggest that the magnets themselves may be too close, first pair too far up the first ramp or second pair too far down the second ramp. You can move the magnets up and down the ramp quite away and still g et good individual ramp operation but on linking, the magnet positions up and down become more critical. If you adjust each ramp to obtain the max lift it can do, the magnet positions up and down have to be spot on and linking is much easier. As we decrease the lift on a ramp, the end spacing stays critical, but the magnets can slide further up and down the ramp without really effecting the ramp. SO, to get good linking, first adjust for max height (Shim the exit up) and then link. > I have gone back to look at my pictures.. to verify > my arrangments are the same as before... and tried adjusting for > hours. I''m baffled > > Any pointers? > Greg ? > > Why did my first one work? > > http://www.clubelite.com/fe > > ben@clubelite.com Hi Ben, Hope the above helps. Remember, adjust for max lift, drop the lift somewhat and then link. Try to get some of the magnet viewing paper we have talked about, Epitaxy says its great as it allows him to see the fields and he can get 4 Neo based ramps linked and working in 45 minutes (down from 8 HOURS). I will include some with every SMOT kit. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 16:39:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:37:06 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 09:04:51 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: My SMOTS don't link anymore? References: <199706042307.QAA12977@mx1.eskimo.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"ynsoi.0.W05.WmVbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7914 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Ben Tammetta wrote: > > Hi, > > Epitaxy wrote: > > BTW: I did managed to get 4 NDFeB SMOT ramps linked reliably with great > > effort, but did not close the loop. The "leakage" attraction from the > > Do you have pictures... I have linked 2... But when I built more and > reconnected the old ones none worked... > > I can't figure out why they will no longer work... (linked) > nothing has significantly changed... > (slight adjustments maybe... ...very slight) > > The 2 ramps work independently of one another fairly well... but when > > I slide them together.. the second ramp fails completely... the ball will > not move up the track........ the 1st ramp nullifies the second in > some way, totally distorts the field or weakens it. Suggest the positions of the magnets on the ramps (up and down) have altered. This sound like a case of the linked ramps being too close. There is an optimal distance for linking. Too close and the first ramp is effected too much to adjust out, too far and the second ramps mag field is not strong enough to pull the ball away from the first. It your inter ramp linking is fixed physically, I suggest that the magnets themselves may be too close, first pair too far up the first ramp or second pair too far down the second ramp. You can move the magnets up and down the ramp quite away and still g et good individual ramp operation but on linking, the magnet positions up and down become more critical. If you adjust each ramp to obtain the max lift it can do, the magnet positions up and down have to be spot on and linking is much easier. As we decrease the lift on a ramp, the end spacing stays critical, but the magnets can slide further up and down the ramp without really effecting the ramp. SO, to get good linking, first adjust for max height (Shim the exit up) and then link. > I have gone back to look at my pictures.. to verify > my arrangments are the same as before... and tried adjusting for > hours. I''m baffled > > Any pointers? > Greg ? > > Why did my first one work? > > http://www.clubelite.com/fe > > ben@clubelite.com Hi Ben, Hope the above helps. Remember, adjust for max lift, drop the lift somewhat and then link. Try to get some of the magnet viewing paper we have talked about, Epitaxy says its great as it allows him to see the fields and he can get 4 Neo based ramps linked and working in 45 minutes (down from 8 HOURS). I will include some with every SMOT kit. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 16:40:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:38:39 -0700 Date: 04 Jun 97 19:36:31 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Re: SMOT Ramp SIzes Resent-Message-ID: <"lEkJU2.0.0C5.ynVbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7915 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, > This means that by shortening the ramp by half, we now have 4 > times as much pull on the ball. The ramp is now twice as steep so > half of the new energy is lost there. But we still have extra > energy. So what to do with this extra energy? We also have > reduced frictional losses as well! > > We increase the spacing of the magnets at the top and achieve a > easier to exit ramp! Yup. Why didn't I (and perhaps some others here) think of this? "Answers on a postcard, please." Chris (grrrr) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 21:50:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 21:49:10 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, ddeleo@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:46:22 (-050 Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Real Time SMOT sims] Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"OiD1_3.0.7j.4Labp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3687 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Dave, > Edmund Scientific has it also > 2 4"x4" sheets for 11.75 us > the number is (609)573-6250 You're right!!! I had pored over the Edmund catalog looking for it and couldn't spot the stuff. I just looked at the pictures, and it showed a horseshoe magnet on a green background. It didn't occur to me that it was the background stuff they were sell ing. I just ordered the sheets from them. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 21:51:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 21:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:46:22 (-050 Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Real Time SMOT sims] Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"CmAw7.0.Z_6.mLabp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7931 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Greg had asked: > > Anyone know any more about this magic magnetic field analysis paper? > > > > I would like to get a supply and include it in ALL SMOT kits. Should > > help ALL of us better adjust our SMOT ramps. > > American Science & Supply has what they call "Magnetic Film" which is a 25 x > 50 mm (1 x 2 inch) piece consisting of 2 layers of plastic inside which is > laminated a mixture of powdered iron, nickel and steel suspended in oil > droplets. > > It's described on page 19 of their Feb, 1996 catalog (#101) and their catalog > number is 10273 -- each piece is priced at $1.50 US. Dave, on the free energy list, noted that Edmund Scientific also had some (though they disguised it well). It's Edmund's part number T33,447 and is 2 sheets of 4 x 4 inch film for $11.95. Edmund's phone is 609-547-8880 and they are at: Edmund Scientific Company 101 E. Gloucester Pike Barrington NJ 08007 -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 17:05:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:03:24 -0700 Date: 04 Jun 97 19:57:47 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Re: The GOAL Resent-Message-ID: <"N3jYr2.0.OQ6.99Wbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7916 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, > The latest improvement in the SMOT ramp kits is screw adjustable > spacing and SHORTED ramps. OK. What would you suggest I shorten to? I'm now at magnet arrays of 100mm length and 10mm high. 16mm of layers, 4mm of steel backing. My ramps are (along their slope) 86mm. I'd really appreciate an answer, because I could shorten these ramps before I make the bases tomorrow (UK time). Yes, I do appreciate the goal of all this. Get the ball rolling free at the same level and then raise that level a couple of mm. And I can see that tipping the support board up is the right way to do that. Regards, Chris (off to bed) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 17:35:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:23:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Barry Merriman , Greg Watson , Vortex-L Subject: RE: $200 SMOT Offer Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:19:00 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"tMUQ03.0.6t3.qRWbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7917 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Barry, Greg Can you think of a good way to measure the initial enegy released by the magnet when you move the ball up to it when you are starting the whole SMOT? To acheive true O/U the system must give this energy back. I was thinking you could put the ball on a sp ring scale at infinity, measuring the energy stored in the scale as you move the ball and spring scale system up to the starting point of the SMOT. device. 1/2*k*d^2 on the spring. Or maybe lift the ball against gravity with the magnet, and compute the potential energy ? Hank Scudder ---------- From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: $200 SMOT Offer Date: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 7:58PM I'll pay $200 if someone will send me a fully functional closed loop SMOT. This means it must be shipped in a form that can be fully assembled in < 1 hour, and once assembled it must run in a closed loop mode with the ball making at least 100 unaided tran sits and at least 10 minutes of continuous run time. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 17:58:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:54:19 -0500 (CDT) From: John Fields Subject: Re: Online project status [FREE Energy Quest (webpage) ] To: tammetta@mindspring.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"fBLC31.0.E-4.SxWbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3673 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Ben Tammetta wrote: > Ok, here it is, > This will revolutionize the way we collaborate and share information. > > http://www.clubelite.com/fe/ > > Online FREE Energy Device Status ( Using WebTrack) > > Now everyone can post and update information on their own FREE > Energy Device or SMOT project so everyone can see. > > I spent all my morning (5 hours) writting this program instead of > closing the loop.... So Everyone better try it out and make use of > it. :) > > Let me know if you find any bugs/errors, have suggestions, or > comments Thanks, > Ben > ben@clubelite.com > > http://www.clubelite.com/fe/ > > > > > ###################### > # Ben Tammetta # > # ben@clubelite.com # > ###################### > > ------------------------ A comment: Said Ben to the Universe: "I exist." Said the Universe to Ben: "That incurs no responsibility on my part." John Fields ----------- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 18:02:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:59:54 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 10:27:48 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The GOAL References: <970604235746_100433.1541_BHG41-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"3bbRc.0.ky1.8-Wbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3674 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Greg, > > > The latest improvement in the SMOT ramp kits is screw adjustable > > spacing and SHORTED ramps. > > OK. What would you suggest I shorten to? I'm now at magnet arrays > of 100mm length and 10mm high. 16mm of layers, 4mm of steel backing. > > My ramps are (along their slope) 86mm. > > I'd really appreciate an answer, because I could shorten these ramps > before I make the bases tomorrow (UK time). > > Yes, I do appreciate the goal of all this. Get the ball rolling free > at the same level and then raise that level a couple of mm. And I can > see that tipping the support board up is the right way to do that. > > Regards, > > Chris > (off to bed) Hi Chris, I am experimenting with 78 and 52mm long arrays (6 and 4 magnets). The ramps are 13-15mm shorter than the array lengths. The 4 magnet arrays (52mm long) seem to be the go, but I will report back soon........ Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 17:57:19 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:49:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "WESLY" To: Subject: Minn-kotta motors Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:07:23 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"s3Kzt1.0.9o4.HqWbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3672 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com To all: I was in KMART today and happened to see a display rack of Minn-Kotta trolling motors. Joe Newman is in litigation with this company for stealing his technology. I have not been able to find out what this technology is except it seem to have very wide claims that apparently cover any invention which has "greater external output than external input". To paraphrase I would take this to mean that anyone who developes a O/U device would be infringing on Joes patent regardless of whether it resembled t he newman motor or not. My understanding could be completley wrong, I sure hope it is. Anyway, to the point. I looked in the owners manuel and noticed that they had a schematic of the motor. It looked like a standard motor with a commutator, stator magnets and windings on the rotor. It also has a motor speed control. The one thing unusual is that it varies the pulse duration which gives it more efficiency at low speeds, nothing new here that I can see. Using short pulses to increase efficiency has been used for years so there must be something hidden that is not shown in the schematic. I s there somebody, anybody that can explain what this motor does that is related to the Newman motor. This motor just doesn't appear to be that big of deal. If it is then we all should know what it is so that we can modify our own motors to do the same thing!! Thanks WES PS HAS ANYONE PURCHASED AND TESTED ONE OF THESE UNITS? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 18:10:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:09:33 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 10:37:25 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Systematic SMOT experiments References: <3390DC62.6E61@microtronics.com.au> <3394D46F.627A@math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"_vkqV.0.vv2.C7Xbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3675 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > > Question for Greg: have you done any systematic experiments > on your functional SMOT to measure the effects of eddy loss, > hysteresis loss, or to characterize its performsance envelope? > > You could argue that you are instead spending your > time teaching other folks how to build one. That is admirable, > but it would not take much time to characterize some simple > aspects of your functioning SMOT, like how long it runs > before it stops, how fast the ball travels, how great are the > accelerations, how far your ball will run on a straight flat > track with magnets || to track (as a measure of eddy current loss), > etc. > > In short, you might want to report some systematic observations > in parallel to teaching others how to build the device. That > would shorten the pipeline rather than waiting for others to > get a functioning unit (which, personally, I'm guessing will > only happen if you sell a kit to build such). > -- > Barry Merriman Hi Barry, I am working to improve the performance envelope of the SMOT ramp kitss now. Shorter ramps, screw based adjustments, wider adjustment margins and reduced frictional losses. I am now experimenting with the "N" gauge track to replace the Alum "U" channel and kill any of the eddy currents flowing through the ball and track circuit. A modified design will be released soon with performance details. Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 18:13:15 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:11:50 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 10:39:36 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: $200 SMOT Offer References: <33938019.78BD@math.ucla.edu> <3393A281.225@skypoint.com> <3394D9EF.28EE@math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"YBr803.0.WA3.H9Xbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3676 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > > I'll pay $200 if someone will send me a fully functional > closed loop SMOT. This means it must be shipped in a form > that can be fully assembled in < 1 hour, and once assembled it must run > in a closed loop mode with the ball making at least 100 > unaided transits and at least 10 minutes of continuous run time. > > -- > Barry Merriman Hi Barry, I am working on a improved SMOT kit at present. The goal is to guarantee closed loop operation. The price will stay at $150 Australian. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 18:34:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:32:05 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 20:31:51 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: SMOT despair Resent-Message-ID: <"tdr3u3.0.785.JSXbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7921 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com We got our taller magnets today (only 9.0mm high instead of 9.7mm like Greg's) and made new magnet arrays and succeeded in making a single ramp on which a 12mm ball would start at 0mm, roll up to 12mm, then fall down our S-shaped exit onto a second level channel at 0mm height. But no amount of fiddling/adjusting would cause the ball to roll away from the end of the ramp by itself. In fact, the ball is rather firmly attracted to the ends of the magnets. Greg, aren't we supposed to be able to achieve a one-ramp level roll away? That would be a positive indication of o-u to me...but I can't get it to happen. Has anyone else achieved a one-ramp level roll away? Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 18:35:13 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:34:40 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 21:34:24 -0400 (EDT) From: woods@most.weird.com (Greg A. Woods) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Cc: crosiar@goldrush.com Subject: Re: Minn-kotta motors References: <199706050044.RAA10403@claim.goldrush.com> Reply-To: woods@weird.com (Greg A. Woods) Organization: Planix, Inc.; Toronto, Ontario; Canada Resent-Message-ID: <"RNHAj2.0._K5.lUXbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3677 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com [ On Wed, June 4, 1997 at 18:07:23 (-0700), crosiar@goldrush.com wrote: ] > Subject: Minn-kotta motors > > Anyway, to the point. I looked in the owners manuel and noticed that they > had a schematic of the motor. It looked like a standard motor with a > commutator, stator magnets and windings on the rotor. It also has a motor > speed control. The one thing unusual is that it varies the pulse duration > which gives it more efficiency at low speeds, nothing new here that I can > see. Using short pulses to increase efficiency has been used for years so > there must be something hidden that is not shown in the schematic. Is there > somebody, anybody that can explain what this motor does that is related to > the Newman motor. This motor just doesn't appear to be that big of deal. > If it is then we all should know what it is so that we can modify our own > motors to do the same thing!! I wouldn't go looking for phantom parts. These are likely just exactly what you've described, with a pulse chopping circuit to cut the current when the load is light. According to the construction article where I first read of them many years ago they c an save significant amounts of power in certain applications (long running constant load?). There's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary with these things -- they still draw real kilowatts/hour. If this mfgr and/or K-Mart actually make claims about giving back more power than they consume, then perhaps some lawyer can make a bundle on litigation against them for false claims.... ;-) -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods Planix, Inc. ; Secrets of the Weird X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 18:41:28 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 21:38:06 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ferro fluid References: Resent-Message-ID: <"qj20c.0.n77._aXbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3678 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Jim Richardson wrote: > I am new to this list and I think I have an idea of how the SMOT works, but > could someone give me some more detailed info re: theory and construction? > thanks all > > -- > Jim Richardson > anarchist, pagan and proud of it. > http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock Check out this site: http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/smotidx.htm X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 18:46:00 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:44:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 11:12:29 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: SMOT Ramp SIzes] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Dlc0B1.0.l86.4eXbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3679 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Message-ID: <3396196B.5D12@microtronics.com.au> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 11:12:03 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Ramp SIzes References: <3395EB61.1241E2D4@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Morning, > > My magnets sizes are 40 x 25 x 10. Did you recommend 80 mm long stacks > instead of 120 mm which I am using currently? > > Regards, > > Hamdi Ucar Hi Hamdi, I recommend experimentation. I am currently testing 78mm (6 x 13mm magnets) and 52mm (4 x 13mm magnets) mag arrays. So far the results show the 52mm array works better. The magnet spacing can then be increased, resulting in an even easier exit. Sounds to good to be true. Less magnet, less ramp and frictional losses and easier exits. But hey, I keep saying that any real Ou device will have operational characteristics that are the reverse to normal experience and expectation. Still testing. Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 18:48:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:48:26 -0700 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 21:43:04 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Systematic SMOT experiments References: <3390DC62.6E61@microtronics.com.au> <3394D46F.627A@math.ucla.edu> <3396114D.5DC7@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"dgKfi3.0.DZ6.chXbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3680 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > I am now experimenting with the "N" gauge track to replace the Alum "U" > channel and kill any of the eddy currents flowing through the ball and > track circuit. > > A modified design will be released soon with performance details. > > Greg I have been using track instead of U channel for a few days now.... It seems to have much less frictional loss and is a hell of alot easier to link to the return track..... Just notch the straight piece w/ a hacksaw near the end to bend it down to aid i n release.... Dave X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 19:33:25 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:32:24 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 11:57:24 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Rollaway Test Resent-Message-ID: <"BgMf02.0.MH1.tKYbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3681 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have attached a GIF showing how I determined the drop height I needed to get a 100mm rollaway. Once I knew the drop height, I had a goal to shoot for. Do this on your SMOT ramps and you will then know how much drop height you must achieve to get a equal height, level rollaway. Another small incremental step, Greg Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\ROLLAWAY.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 19:35:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:32:25 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 11:57:24 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Rollaway Test Resent-Message-ID: <"BgMf02.0.IH1.tKYbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7923 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have attached a GIF showing how I determined the drop height I needed to get a 100mm rollaway. Once I knew the drop height, I had a goal to shoot for. Do this on your SMOT ramps and you will then know how much drop height you must achieve to get a equal height, level rollaway. Another small incremental step, Greg Content-Type: image/gif; name="rollaway-test.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="rollaway-test.gif" GIF89añM÷X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 19:33:41 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:32:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 11:59:52 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: newman-l@emachine.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Systematic SMOT experiments References: <3390DC62.6E61@microtronics.com.au> <3394D46F.627A@math.ucla.edu> <3396114D.5DC7@microtronics.com.au> <339619A8.E29@ix.netcom.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"NzS j-2.0.qI1.1LYbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3682 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Dave DeLeo wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > I am now experimenting with the "N" gauge track to replace the Alum "U" > > channel and kill any of the eddy currents flowing through the ball and > > track circuit. > > > > A modified design will be released soon with performance details. > > > > Greg > > I have been using track instead of U channel for a few days now.... It > seems to have much less frictional loss and is a hell of alot easier to > link to the return track..... Just notch the straight piece w/ a > hacksaw near the end to bend it down to aid in release.... > > Dave Hi Dave, My thoughts as well. Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 19:35:16 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:34:41 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 12:02:33 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT despair References: <199706050131.UAA17573@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"1ELPw1.0.0T1._MYbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3683 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > We got our taller magnets today (only 9.0mm high instead of 9.7mm like > Greg's) and made new magnet arrays and succeeded in making a single ramp on > which a 12mm ball would start at 0mm, roll up to 12mm, then fall down our > S-shaped exit onto a second level channel at 0mm height. But no amount of > fiddling/adjusting would cause the ball to roll away from the end of the > ramp by itself. In fact, the ball is rather firmly attracted to the ends of > the magnets. > > Greg, aren't we supposed to be able to achieve a one-ramp level roll away? > That would be a positive indication of o-u to me...but I can't get it to happen. > > Has anyone else achieved a one-ramp level roll away? > > Scott Little Hi Scott, Do the rollaway test I have posted. Then use one or two ramps to get that drop height. It will roll away. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 20:04:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 20:02:31 -0700 Date: 04 Jun 97 22:59:58 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: SMOT despair Resent-Message-ID: <"GUKKl3.0.m33.5nYbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7928 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Scott asked: >>Has anyone else achieved a one-ramp level roll away?<< Yeah, but with varying layer of magnets. I have not build Greg's design. It only takes a minute. Create a two rows of four magnets. Then stack three deep on each of the exit pair. Now, bridge the middle two with a single magnet. Place your rows parallel to the track. It will roll away significantly after exiting a level ramp. Like this: __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __________ __________ ===> __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Not really an ego enhancement -- just the easiest way I could get it to work mechanically. Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 15:00:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 14:56:19 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:54:35 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT Kits re-send Resent-Message-ID: <"dF7D11.0.c62.2Opbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7958 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rob - I think the chevron is a dud. I wanted to look at it because of its intriguing geometry, and because it shows up in those rotary designs. People here were thinking of building rotary designs based on it. I think now that those rotary versions have no chance of working, and that seems to be the consensus. Blanton's Blue Alley or the Watson ramp seem to be the way to go. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 21:34:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 21:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 13:54:06 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Terry Blanton's "Blue Alley" Resent-Message-ID: <"ociPb.0.tI6.N4abp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3685 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Attached is a Gif (Flux and XY Plot) of Terry Blanton's SMOT variation. It looks very interesting. I will build a unit to confirm Terry's rollaway claim. He may have come up with a really good design. Will report back. Greg Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\TERRY-B.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 21:31:54 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 21:30:54 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 13:55:44 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Terry Blanton's "Blue Alley" Resent-Message-ID: <"2OAyR1.0.Sd7.v3abp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3686 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Here is the XY plot of Terry's SMOT variation. The XY plot looks superior to my SMOT design. Greg Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\TERRY-XY.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 22:06:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 22:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:04:16 -0500 (CDT) X-Se nder: little@mail.eden.com To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au, freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: SMOT despair 2 Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"PepTN1.0.PI.Daabp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7932 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 07:36 AM 6/5/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: >Remember, our goal at the monent is NOT to link ramps in a circle, but >to use linked ramps to INCREASE the final release height and get a equal >height, level ball rollaway. This is finally sinking in, Greg. We'll try 2 or 3 linked ramps tomorrow. Struggling against "known facts" - Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 22:06:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 22:04:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 22:04:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Cunningham Patent 4,443,776 Resent-Message-ID: <"yXpD71.0.It1.eZabp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7933 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 10:37 AM 6/4/97 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Michael - > > > I built a pair of 1x23 parallel mag assay 190mm > > long and the ball traveled the lenght. > >Did the ball appear to have a slower net speed during the trip down this [snip] >Case #1 (no magic) longer arrays stretch the magnetic > potential difference too thin and > the ball won't go. > >Case #2 (magic) longer arrays still work because > there's mysterious energy in the > form of "watsons" coming into the > system. > >IMO, it would be a good conventional/OU test for this kind of array, and >might save people the trouble of trying to build a Cunningham type of >rotary device which would then have no chance of working if case #1 is what >is observed. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Hi Rick, Looks like Case #1 (no magic). The power output for the effect is less than flea power on a level track, let alone climbing 12mm. Cunningham patent another Red Herring non workable device. Going to try Terry Blanton's "Blue Alley" arrays. Looks very interesting! Maybe can get a level roll away on one ramp or at least get a better linking with the second ramp so as to skip the Blu-Tack. Michael Randall X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 22:40:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 22:39:02 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:38:52 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Rollaway criteria Resent-Message-ID: <"N-Kdp3.0.SN3.r3bbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7934 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 12:09 PM 6/5/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: >Do the rollaway experiment I have just posted. It will give you a drop >height to shoot for. It looks from the drawing as if you don't have any magnets around in this drop-height test. Doesn't that totally invalidate the results. Our balls usually BARELY drop off the end of the ramp because they are so strongly attracted to the upper ends of th e magnet array. With no magnets, you could just set the 12mm U-track down flat on the table and push the ball off of it onto the N-gauge track and you'd get a lot more than 100mm rollaway, right? More confused than usual - Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 23:04:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:03:30 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net (Unverified) To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: SMOT despair Resent-Message-ID: <"O6WeX3.0.NN4.oQbbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7935 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Terry, Your design sounds interesting! Can you describe what materials you used in your model? Magnet size? Ball size? Rail size? I would like to try to build a unit. Best Regards, Michael Randall At 10:59 PM 6/4/97 EDT, you wrote: >Scott asked: > >>>Has anyone else achieved a one-ramp level roll away?<< > >Yeah, but with varying layer of magnets. I have not build Greg's design. > >It only takes a minute. Create a two rows of four magnets. Then stack three >deep on each of the exit pair. Now, bridge the middle two with a single magnet. >Place your rows parallel to the track. It will roll away significantly after >exiting a level ramp. Like this: > > __ > __ __ >__ __ __ __ >__________ >__________ ===> >__ __ __ __ > __ __ > __ > >Not really an ego enhancement -- just the easiest way I could get it to work >mechanically. > >Terry > > > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 23:40:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 02:38:29 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: Re: Bearden Questions To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"WIHIU3.0.yi2.Gzbbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3688 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id XAA20265 Bob Shannon wrote: >> What are the biggest barriers to proceeding with the design of a >> working free energy device (not just a detector) based on his earlier >> theories? >None that I see. There does however appear to be a huge lack of >practical 'how to' information on scalar engineering. There are fairly >few who actually construct such devices however. Most people are far >more interested in getting disconnected from teh power grid than they >are interested in mastering a new technology. >We must crawl before we walk, and expect to fall down a lot while >learning. How many are willing to invest this level of effort to do >things the hard way? >Thats the barrier that must be overcome. This is what is responsible >for the lack of practical information in the first place! Well, getting disconnected from the power grid is certainly asking for too much at this stage. My focus on generating power is a focus a goal. It is going to take time for me to learn more about this. You have identified a direction for me to persue. That is what I was hoping for when I posted my questions. Thanks. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 23:45:36 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 02:38:32 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: Re: Bedini Questions To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"lL2Wy2.0.jj2.Uzbbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3689 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id XAA20657 This is a reply to the replies of: Fred Epps Stuart Rae ----------------------------------------------------- Fred Epps wrote: >Is this loss in the caps really from their internal resistance? >I was under the impression that capacitive energy storage was in >itself lossless Yes. It can be a lossless energy STORAGE (assuming there is no leakage current), but that does not mean that it is lossless energy TRANSFER. >What if the caps were made of superconducting material with a >vacuum gap? What happens then? I was trying to keep is symple, so I did not previously mention the series inductance of the capacitor. If the resistance is low enough, then the circuit will oscillate when you connect the two caps, and the oscilations will eventually die down, and you w ill still loose the same amount of energy. If the resistance were zero, and if the inductance were lossless, then theoretically, it would oscillate forever and the energy would not be lost. >Irving Gottlieb in "Power Supplies, Switching Regulators, Inverters, >And Converters", p.459 says in reference to this situation: Thanks for pointing out that I am not the only one who says this. >Does this sound as weak to anyone else as it does to me? Yes. It is a week argument. If you want a stonger argument then: 1) Derive a mathmatical formula for current as a function of time for any given capacitance and series resistance (assuming no inductance). 2) Take the square of the current times the series resistance. This gives you the power dissipation as a function of time. 3) Take the integral of the power dissipation over time from time zero to time infinity. This gives you the total energy loss over time. 4) The value of the series resistance will dissapear from the final resulting formula. So the energy loss does not depend on the resistance. >wouldn't a circuit consisting of several caps switching back and >forth like this represent an energy sink that would draw a current, >a sort of electrical black hole? The circuit would sink (consume) the energy, meaning it would convert the energy into heat just like any other electrical circuit. The current does not dissapear. The current always flows in a loop (in compliance with Kirkoff's current law) as it always d oes. If you replace the batteries with capacitors in figure 2 of my original message, and if the switches and diodes are ideal (no power loss), and if the load is a low resistance (so the RC time constant is far less than the cycle time), then the total energy storage in all of the capacitors will decrease by 36% every time you throw switchs (acording to conventional theory anyway). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stuart Rae wrote: >For example, it is known that when a capacitor is charged through a >series resistance in a number of equally increasing voltage steps 'n', >the energy dissipated in the circuit resistance is inversely >proportional to the number of voltage steps. And as the number of >steps tends to infinity, the energy dissipated tends to zero. That is, >it now becomes .5 CV^2/n and the energy delivered by the source becomes, >.5 CV^2(1+1/n). >So why then is the "loss" of energy attributed to its dissipation across >the circuit resistance? This is not a facetcious question: And if anyone >can give me a logical explanation, I'd be most grateful. (Or where have >I misunderstood the implications of the above equations?) If you change a capacitor in N steps instead of 1, then the magnitude of the voltage steps are reduced by a factor of 1/N, so the magnitude of the current spikes are reduced by a factor of 1/N, so the magnitude of the energy loss for each current spike is reduced by 1/(N*N), but there are N of these spikes, so the total energy loss is reduced by N * 1/(N*N) which works out to 1/N. So the total energy loss is reduced by a factor of 1/N. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 23:48:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:46:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:46:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"FA6GB.0.Nd5.P3cbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7937 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 08:57 PM 6/2/97 EDT, Terry Blanton wrote: >Rick asked: > >>>Can you have continuous linking without eventual array convergence or blue >hole drop-through regauging? I think that's what it comes down to.<< > >We might find the answer when we get to see the RMOD. > >I think the rolling resistance plays a huge part in this. I tried my >configuration with a wooden rule instead of the hard plastic and could not get >roll-away on a horizontal rail. Also, to get roll-away, the ball must strike a >rigid surface. I get virtually no roll-away when it strikes corrugated paper. > >Can you say "teflon rails"? If you have any PTFE, try just a smige on your >rail. KY Jelly *does not work*. > >Terry > Hi Terry, When you say strick a ridged surface do you mean when the ball exits to ramp and drops to the start level surface then rolls? Or, when the ball exits the ramp it hits a ridge surface that deflects the ball downward (or left or right) to the table? You mentioned that you could get the ball to exit and roll away on a level track. How did did you do this? How far did it roll away? Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 23:58:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:53:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Cheap SMOT!! Resent-Message-ID: <"FioOB2.0.a53.SBcbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7938 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 08:17 PM 5/28/97 EDT, Terry Blanton wrote: >Gnorts Vorts! > >Well, it works! > >I did a cheap and dirty SMOT. I took my architect's rule (triangular cross >section and groved on all sides) and propped it between some ceramic tiles left >over from bathroom remodelling. I taped a row of magnets to duct tape. I left >a bit to tape on the edge of the magnets to tape them to the tiles. I got tired >of retaping the magnets to get the correct angle and simply taped them against >the rule. I then added magnets in staggered layers, 4 at the exit on either >side, 3 before that, 2 before that and two sets of one each at the entrance to >give me a gradient. My magnets are about 1" high and my ball is 1/2" dia. steel >bearing. It works best if you elevate the ramp until the top of the ball is >near the top of the magnets. > >I placed the ball on the rule at the entrance and it accelerated down the rule >and exited and rolled off the table. I then elevated the exit end up to 20 >degrees (approx.) and the ball still shot through. It starts from a complete >stop and has momentum left after exiting the SMOT. > >The end of the ramp MUST come before the end of the magnets. Otherwise, the >ball jerks back in reverse and oscillates to a stop. That's the secret, >vertically exiting the field about midway through the last magnet! > >Okay, it works . . . now why? > >Terry > Hi Terry, I missed this message and it answered some questions I sent to you earlier. Sorry. Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 00:16:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:13:37 -0700 From: Dan Quickert To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: SMOT despair Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:10:38 -0700 Encoding: 25 TEXT, 42 UUENCODE X-MS-Attachment: WINMAIL.DAT 0 00-00-1980 00:00 Resent-Message-ID: <"bbD9K3.0.KQ6.WScbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7939 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sometimes the more I read here the more confused I get. Terry Blanton wrote: >Scott asked: > >>>Has anyone else achieved a one-ramp level roll away?<< > >Yeah, but with varying layer of magnets. I have not build Greg's design. > >It only takes a minute. Create a two rows of four magnets. Then stack three >deep on each of the exit pair. Now, bridge the middle two with a single magnet. >Place your rows parallel to the track. It will roll away significantly after >exiting a level ramp. Like this: "exiting a level ramp" ?? Terry, you're not saying that the *whole ramp* is level, are you? I take the phrase "level roll-away" to mean that the roll-away track is at the same level as the ramp entry - but the ramp itself is inclined. Is that what you've done? Dan Quickert begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(CD'`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$ MD 8`' $```$````,`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````10`````` M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````'9O"UL0&5S:VEM;RYC;VT`4TU4 M4 !V;W )T97@M;$!E"UL0&5S:VEM;RYC;VTG`````@$+, $` M```9````4TU44#I63U)415@M3$!%4TM)34\N0T]-``````,``#D`````"P! M.@$````"`?8/`0````0````````",#,!!( !`!$```!213H@4TU/5"!D97-P M86ER`#P%`06 `P`.````S0<&``4````*`"8`! `3`0$@@ ,`#@```,T'!@`% M````! `Q``0`& $!"8 !`"$```!!.3`!X,`0````4```!33510`````!X`'PP!````%P```&1E<75I M8VME``@0`0```&4` M``!33TU%5$E-15-42$5-3U)%25)%041(15)%5$A%34]214-/3D954T5$24=% M5%1%4E)90DQ!3E1/3E=23U1%.E-#3U1405-+140Z2$%304Y93TY%14Q314%# M2$E%5D5$04].12U2``````(!"1 !````) ,``" #```'!0``3%I&=8A&,$O_ M``H!#P(5`J0#Y 7K`H,`4!,#5 (`8V@*P'-E=.XR!@`&PP*#,@/&!Q,"@T8S M`\4"`'!R<1(BFAEHFP#($1L9P*#-1,-+GT*@ C/"=D[&3\R M-1XU`H *@0VQ"V!N9S'\,#,4( L*$O(!T 8``W!K$@`'X>,>AP6@;F9U$? ?8!\06F<2`"X*A0J%5 20H!:@$? G3\\/"?O/H)9'T!H+"!B=05 4P/P'H @=@K >0N 9R\K M4"PP!) JP&8>L&%G\2F@=',N)8 ?$!' *G"\(&XC,"WQ`Q ?8$<90/QG)P0@ M#; `D"_ (48H6?9)!4 "(&PB< & 0)Z I0=<>L N +A!E,!%#'S$50-$JH71W M;RNQ=P0@+W'W`A (<"^95!:0`Z 5, #0WFL><0G1,C<-L&4K0"+A3Q] $; O M8AZ"97@N4"#I)!!I$%$.YD(1 >=#L@9"M@-6,N0[\JL "0'$ [ M\2^D,BA0"V#^8QZ@*8 V436S)!$'0"M@]P,@(M >@,!(N(I\6L2O' M/,$OP :0:6,BL?TSH6$!@ 20,C@#40'G,JG'=H!O > MH"L2*B $`/\K5"W@"L ^@TE0'Q STAYSKG WX"> 'J B*V@M+!+_22 _T0> M`Y%+!T\G0#1,4O]+)4J0!X K52DQ4*,K(@GP>T! (G M+?-39RY0$?!LYR^ M3&$+@&-L"X )@# 0?DD>8DLA2Z!+(4GB,(%DU2F1/R% <1 .143$`-Z"=!)!T M(W\+(580,S8F@2\=&B:71;4880!=8 ,`$! ``````P`1$ ````! ```#T``0````4```!213H@``````,`#33]-P`` "I$9Q ` end X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 00:25:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 16:50:34 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Rollaway criteria References: <199706050538.AAA10518@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"_QwSb2.0.Bo3.ibcbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3690 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > At 12:09 PM 6/5/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: > > >Do the rollaway experiment I have just posted. It will give you a drop > >height to shoot for. > > It looks from the drawing as if you don't have any magnets around in this > drop-height test. Doesn't that totally invalidate the results. Our balls > usually BARELY drop off the end of the ramp because they are so strongly > attracted to the upper ends of the magnet array. > > With no magnets, you could just set the 12mm U-track down flat on the table > and push the ball off of it onto the N-gauge track and you'd get a lot more > than 100mm rollaway, right? > > More confused than usual - Scott Hi Scott, Sorry for the confusion. The mag arrays were left off to clarify the diagram. The idea is to lift both the front and the back of the SMOT ramp an equal amount. With the rollaway N gauge ball catcher below and a VERTICAL drop you can then determine how much drop height you need to get a rollaway. Remember to remove a bit of the fl oor in the U channel to allow the ball to drop cleanly (the front edge of the floor needs to be cut back about 2mm or so). Once thats known, the goal posts are in sight. Link a few SMOTs, get incremental lift from each one to the goal drop height and you will achieve a rollaway. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 00:52:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:48:36 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 03:47:19 -0400 (EDT) To: ben@tammetta.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, gwatson@microtronics.com.au Subject: Re : My SMOTS don't link anymore? Resent-Message-ID: <"J7zO01.0.rE7.Jzcbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7942 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 05/06/1997 07:56:46 , Ben Tammetta wrote : << Do you have pictures... I have linked 2... But when I built more and reconnected the old ones none worked... I can't figure out why they will no longer work... (linked) nothing has significantly changed... (slight adjustments maybe... ...very slight) The 2 ramps work independently of one another fairly well... but when I slide them together.. the second ramp fails completely... the ball will not move up the track........ the 1st ramp nullifies the second in some way, totally distorts the field or weakens it. I have gone back to look at my pictures.. to verify my arrangments are the same as before... and tried adjusting for hours. I''m baffled Any pointers? Greg ? Why did my first one work? http://www.clubelite.com/fe ben@clubelite.com >> Hi Greg and Ben, I have exactly the SAME PROBLEM as Ben. I am able to link successfully two units but the third and the fourth unit interact with the second ramp exit. I have applied the update (phase 2) on the exit of my SMOT device, with this update the rolling of the b all is improved but the blue hole stick the ball when I put the third steel ball. I hope that you will help us to succeed in the SMOT linking and closing the loop, I send to you and Ben a photo of my SMOT v1.02 improved exit directly, ( this will avoid to overload the vortex-server )... GREG, WE WAIT FOR YOUR SMOTs PICTURES IN LINKING and IN CLOSED LOOP, this will help us to understand the correct setup.... Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 01:46:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 01:44:37 -0700 From: Dan Quickert To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Cc: "'freenrg -l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: SMOT Ramp SIzes Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 01:40:47 -0700 Encoding: 12 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"61SpO1.0.o41.qndbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7943 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Short ramps are cool! Finally found a use for all the 2" Neos that I bought. Had tried previously using multiples, end-to-end, to get a 4" (100cm) ramp. But that didn't work too well, exits were real tricky. Now tried just *one* magnet on each side, and got 18mm lift (so far) with exit easy as can be! Haven't tried linking or roll-away yet, that'll have to wait. It's way past bedtime and tomorrow is a visit to my personal energy source - the high Sierra. Don't everybody go linking mini-ramps in circles while I'm away! Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 02:10:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 02:09:05 -0700 From: Dan Quickert To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: Magn et size correction Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 02:06:06 -0700 Encoding: 6 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"4YyqL1.0.qg1.m8ebp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7944 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Well, golly... those 2" Neos that I mentioned are supposed to be 1.96" long, 0.39" wide, 0.20" thick according to the specs from my American supplier. Actual measurement shows 50mm x 10mm x 5mm. Metrics are so boring... Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 02:14:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 02:12:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 02:12:55 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: SMOT despair Resent-Message-ID: <"4jYKZ1.0.Eu5.xBebp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7945 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I have achieved 1 ramp rollaway (180mm), but did not closed the loop yet. Too much leakage from my capricious ego-improved NdFeB mag.arrays :( At 08:31 PM 6/4/97 -0500, you wrote: >We got our taller magnets today (only 9.0mm high instead of 9.7mm like >Greg's) and made new magnet arrays and succeeded in making a single ramp on >which a 12mm ball would start at 0mm, roll up to 12mm, then fall down our >S-shaped exit onto a second level channel at 0mm height. But no amount of >fiddling/adjusting would cause the ball to roll away from the end of the >ramp by itself. In fact, the ball is rather firmly attracted to the ends of >the magnets. > >Greg, aren't we supposed to be able to achieve a one-ramp level roll away? >That would be a positive indication of o-u to me...but I can't get it to happen. > >Has anyone else achieved a one-ramp level roll away? > >Scott Little >EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 >512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) >little@eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 03:42:57 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 03:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 12:29:55 +0200 X-Sender: harti@shell2.ba.best.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: SMOT despair Resent-Message-ID: <"1Hli41.0.vA.HUfbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3693 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id DAA03381 > >I have achieved 1 ramp rollaway (180mm), but did not closed the loop yet. > >Too much leakage from my capricious ego-improved NdFeB mag.arrays :( > Why don´t you shield the N-gauge area off from the ramps via MU-Metall shielding iron ? Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 07:31:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 07:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Jun 97 10:16:09 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: vortex-l Subject: Cheap SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"a9mLs1.0.fY4.xgibp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7949 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Gnorts, Vorts, Thanks for the sims Greg. I was wondering what they looked like. The ball's motion reflects the field plot in that it pauses slightly after the first peak then shoots on to the exit with vigor toward the second (and greater) peak. The Radio Shack magnets are roughly 1" x 3/4" x 1/8" and my ball is 1/2" in diameter. I have to elevate my ramp to get the top of the ball to the top of the mag array. This makes linking difficult since my magnets are taller than my ball. But, I only s ought proof of concept and threw this together in a few minutes at a total cost of $3.59. The configuration in my previous message utilizes a minimum number of magnets. Because the magnets are higher than the ball, even with a level ramp, my ball falls higher than the entrance point. However, based on my previous arguments, because my ball strikes a rigid surface (a ceramic tile), roll-away demonstrates the anomaly. Th e anomaly is the result of the ball exiting the field at the "blue hole" VERTICALLY. The ball does not pass through the end of the array. The ramp must end approximately one centimeter before the end of the array. I believe that using Greg's magnets and ball size according to his specification in this layered configuration will result in a SMOT with less sensitivity to adjustment. Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 08:52:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 08:48:12 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 08:48:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Cheap SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"qIBdR.0.NP6.x-jbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7951 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 10:16 AM 6/5/97 EDT, Terry Blanton wrote: >Gnorts, Vorts, > >Thanks for the sims Greg. I was wondering what they looked like. The ball's >motion reflects the field plot in that it pauses slightly after the first peak >then shoots on to the exit with vigor toward the second (and greater) peak. > >The Radio Shack magnets are roughly 1" x 3/4" x 1/8" and my ball is 1/2" in >diameter. I have to elevate my ramp to get the top of the ball to the top of >the mag array. This makes linking difficult since my magnets are taller than my >ball. But, I only sought proof of concept and threw this together in a few >minutes at a total cost of $3.59. The configuration in my previous message >utilizes a minimum number of magnets. > >Because the magnets are higher than the ball, even with a level ramp, my ball >falls higher than the entrance point. However, based on my previous arguments, >because my ball strikes a rigid surface (a ceramic tile), roll-away demonstrates >the anomaly. The anomaly is the result of the ball exiting the field at the >"blue hole" VERTICALLY. The ball does not pass through the end of the array. >The ramp must end approximately one centimeter before the end of the array. > >I believe that using Greg's magnets and ball size according to his specification >in this layered configuration will result in a SMOT with less sensitivity to >adjustment. > >Terry > Hi Terry, I am trying to visualize your design. For operation, does the ball rolls across the sloped ramp (arch ruler?), falls off the ramp end (1cm from mag assay end), hits a ceramic tile, that is lower than the ramp end, and then ball bounces and rolls away at the same level as entry height? Or a horizontal ramp siting level on table with the ball at exit, hits a ceramic tile on the table below, that then bounces higher than the ramp end, that then rolls away at a lower starting elevation? How are the magnets positioned, with the 1" dim. vertical or layed horizontal to the ramp? Michael X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 10:31:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 10:30:21 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 13:28:52 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Subject: SMOT v1.03 - Rollaway test Resent-Message-ID: <"V9aKN.0.uQ3.hUlbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3694 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Today, I have built my SMOT v1.03 device with a smaller magnet ramp ( 160 mm) than the v1.02 ( 200 mm ) as Greg said in a previous email about the length of the magnetic ramp, I have been able to conduct successfully the rollaway test with ONE unit ( roll away = more than 180 mm with a aluminium U channel, and more than 400 mm with a straight plastic railroad ) You will find videos and pictures ( SMOT with the steel ball running on a railroad ) at : http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/s103jln.htm Next step.......the closed loop..... Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 11:13:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Jun 97 14:03:45 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Cheap SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"OnSMg.0.z46.Z0mbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7954 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall asks: >>For operation, does the ball rolls across the sloped ramp (arch ruler?), falls off the ramp end (1cm from mag assay end), hits a ceramic tile, that is lower than the ramp end, and then ball bounces and rolls away at the same level as entry height?<< The ramp can be level or tilted so the ball is pulled UPHILL (the entry is lower than the exit). But, because my magnets protrude below the bottom of the ramp (they're too high), the whole rig has to be elevated a bit (otherwise the ball can't exit the f ield vertically and gets pulled back to one of the magnets). But, yes, I can get roll-away from a level or tilted (up to maybe 20 degrees) ramp. Roll-away is further with a level ramp. It'll roll about 30 inches from a level ramp and 18" when the ramp is inclined to the limits of the array's "pull" (on a Formica surface). The roll-away results vary with the exit angle which is sometimes influenced by the magnets depending on the adjustments of the array. >>How are the magnets positioned, with the 1" dim. vertical or layed horizontal to the ramp?<< The long dimension is parallel to the ramp. Hmmm. . .you have made me think (which is dangerous for an engineer). My entry point is higher than my impact point; so, each time I lift the ball back to the entry point, I impart some potential energy to the ball. As the ball falls off the ramp, it is still influenced by the magnets, which, like a pendulum string can translate the momentum imparted by gravity. I guess the only way to be sure we have an anomaly is to "close the loop" since quantifying these small energies in a single ramp can be near impossible. Or, I could get a larger ball or smaller magnets. Unfortunately, like Rick, my real-world responsibilities have precluded further smotting for the time being. Terry X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 10:39:02 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 10:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 12:39:12 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn-Kota motors Resent-Message-ID: <"8dCvf.0.UD5.talbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3695 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >[ On Wed, June 4, 1997 at 18:07:23 (-0700), crosiar@goldrush.com wrote: ] >> Subject: Minn-kotta motors >> >> Anyway, to the point. I looked in the owners manuel and noticed that they >> had a schematic of the motor. It looked like a standard motor with a >> commutator, stator magnets and windings on the rotor. It also has a motor >> speed control. The one thing unusual is that it varies the pulse duration >> which gives it more efficiency at low speeds, nothing new here that I can >> see. Using short pulses to increase efficiency has been used for years so >> there must be something hidden that is not shown in the schematic. Is there >> somebody, anybody that can explain what this motor does that is related to >> the Newman motor. This motor just doesn't appear to be that big of deal. >> If it is then we all should know what it is so that we can modify our own >> motors to do the same thing!! > >I wouldn't go looking for phantom parts. These are likely just exactly >what you've described, with a pulse chopping circuit to cut the current >when the load is light. According to the construction article where I >first read of them many years ago they can save significant amounts of >power in certain applications (long running constant load?). > >There's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary with these things -- they >still draw real kilowatts/hour. > >If this mfgr and/or K-Mart actually make claims about giving back more >power than they consume, then perhaps some lawyer can make a bundle on >litigation against them for false claims.... ;-) > >-- > Greg A. Woods > >+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods >Planix, Inc. ; Secrets of the Weird Dear Greg/Wes, At this point in time I can state that the documentation assembled by Joseph Newman regarding Minn-Kota's theft of his technology is both substantial and impressive. It is no "accident" that the same Dr. Hastings who worked closely with Joseph Newman for a number of years has also been a consultant to Minn-Kota. While I (personally) would like very much to provide you with such documentation to satisfy your curiosity, it has been requested that this not be done for legal reasons. Gyroscopically yours, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "The day when we shall know exactly what electricity is, will chronicle an event probably greater than any other recorded in the human race." --- NIKOLA TESLA X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 12:03:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:58:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Cyber Computer Networks Ltd." To: Subject: SMOT Kits re-send Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 19:54:35 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"95owA.0.vx.Rnmbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7955 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, Sorry for the mail re-send, someone changed our password and downloaded all mail for the last 12 hours or so. Can you re-send any reply if any? > Hi Greg, > > Sorry to hear about your HD failure. Want a new 2.6 fujitsu IDE mode 4, > I'll swap it for a working closed loop SMOT kit :) > > I cannot get my ramp to drop the ball on the flat and run out. It must be > dropped below the ramp start height and I am worried that during the drop > through the blue hole it loses some energy to the pull back up effect. > So if I cannot get if to run out flat then there is little point in > building a two ramp version yet or is it? > But it does go uphill about 8 mm! or about 3 degrees from the level. > I am using two sims made of computer case blanking plates with 6 off 2cm > circular fridge magnets taped to them. These two sims are rubber banded to > a 11cm piece of 22mm copper tube, with six pieces of 4mm balsa strips to > pack the sims away from the tubing, 4 at one end and 2 at the other. 19mm > steel ball bearing. > > Will the SMOT kits run as a closed loop? > What is the longest the SMOT kit has run for? > > I would like to have a go at the RMOD device so will you be posting any > details on this device yet or near future? > > Does the RMOD use curved sims? > Does the RMOD use a series of ball bearings mounted on a rotor. > > How is the work on the RMOD 2 coming on? > If it is running how long has it run for ? > If I could get a closed loop running for more than 1 rev then I would > chuffed to bits and probaly not sleep for a week, and I look forward to > that day, it would be like all my birthdays and christmas's arriving at > once. > > > PS Has anyone had any success with the chevron arrangement? > > > Rob King > (shared internet connection) > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 14:26:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Jun 97 17:17:55 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: SMOT v1.03 - Rollaway test Resent-Message-ID: <"75ujh.0.n56.Ruobp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7956 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Epitaxy, > I also have achieved 180mm rollaway with 1 NdFeB SMOT ramp. My > entry and rollaway tracks are on the same level within 0.1mm. That is prima facie OU, because: Entry Exit Gravitational PE Equal Magnetic PE Greater KE Greater I'm not saying it *is* OU, simply that it looks very much like it. Let's not forget the eddy currents (in your case the magnets conduct too) and all the frictional losses. I just cannot see what can be brought in to balance the books. I also have problems interpreting M Naudin's pictures and would be glad if he would give more details - perhaps in line with the basic list I have given above. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 14:31:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 14:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:28:27 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: BLUE-HOLE (N.G.) Example? Resent-Message-ID: <"JAPKk3.0.d76.7vobp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7957 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Blue-Hole Seekers, Check out the cover PHOTO on "National Geographic APRIL 1997 (vol. 191, No. 4)) 'Hubble's Eye on the Universe'. The Hubble Telescope captures a 'dying star' engulfed in gases 8,000 light-years away. ?In 'my minds-eye' this hour-glass shape is how I perc eive our smot 'Blue Hole'. This would explain a lot as to why it is 'working!' pointed North, East, South or West. The HOUR-GLASS shape (360 degree through-out the flux) would always be increasingly smaller toward our 'Bulls-eye' center of adjustment, u sing, loosing or gaining whatever it encountered on it's up-ramp magnetic trip. While further off the 'Bulls-eye' center mark, the ball increasingly tries to 'jump-the-track' and act 'normal?'.. One picture is worth a-thousand-ascii characters? The picture looks to me as if it's almost a sideways view (smot-wise) less gravity, our balls would be roughly on the bottom of the photo moving up and through the center towards the top of the magaz ine (where issue name is) and would end up about 4" below the thickness of the magazine. -se- ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 15:34:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 17:21:39 -0500 From: Craig Haynie Reply-To: ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT v1.03 - Rollaway test References: <970605132851_1010499783@emout04.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"LD7J-.0.tO1.Vvpbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7959 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com JNaudin509@aol.com wrote: > > Today, I have built my SMOT v1.03 device with a smaller magnet ramp ( 160 mm) > than the v1.02 ( 200 mm ) as Greg said in a previous email about the length > of the magnetic ramp, I have been able to conduct successfully the rollaway > test with ONE unit ( rollaway = more than 180 mm with a aluminium U channel, > and more than 400 mm with a straight plastic railroad ) If you've got 400mm roll-away with one ramp, you might even be able to close the loop by just letting the ball roll around the plastic track back into the first and only ramp. If that's too ambitious, it seems you could still do it with 2 ramps. Just let the ball roll out and then go around a 180 curve, through another ramp, and then through another 180 curve, back into the original ramp. You may not need 4 ramps, or ramp linking. ______ / \ | | | | | | | | FIRST RAMP -> | | | | <- SECOND RAMP | | | | | | | | \______/ Hasta, Craig Haynie (Houston) ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 15:40:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:31:59 -0700 Date: 05 Jun 97 18:30:07 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: vortex-l Subject: More on roll-away. Resent-Message-ID: <"vYeh.0.8U3.Uvpbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7960 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Gnorts, Vorts, I have noticed that the amount of roll-away is dependent on the ramp width on my toy. A wider ramp causes the ball to move up the ramp slower because the ball has to make more rotations since the ramp contacts the ball more toward the sides than the bott om. A 1/2" diameter ball only makes about 2.5 rotations to move 4 inches on a table; but, a good deal more rotations result from the side rail contact. With a wider ramp, the ball has more spin when it exits the ramp and the y axis spin of the ball seems to be what imparts the roll-away. If I simply drop the ball down the exit point with my fingers, I see no roll-away; so, it apparently is not the infl uence of the magnet on a falling ball which causes roll-away. Oh, and I don't see any obvious difference between the North pole on the right and the South pole on the left as opposed to the South on the right. (Sorry, Horace.) Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 16:12:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 16:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 16:00:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: How to do Roll-Away tests Resent-Message-ID: <"_hSVc.0.Pp2.gPqbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7961 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com JUst thought I would point out that the proper way to do a roll away test is to point the track in some direction and insert the ball at point A, and let it roll away to point B. Then, take the setup over to point B, direct it back at point A, and now get the ball to roll from entry point B back to point A. Going both directions like this eliminates the possibility of simply roling down a hill and mistaking it as roll-away: Test 1. *A ------------> B Test 2. *B ------------> A * = starting location of ball. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 16:22:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 16:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:14:31 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: SMOT v1.03 - Rollaway test Resent-Message-ID: <"0LJKg.0.J33.FYqbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7963 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 13:28 6/5/97 -0400, Jean-Louis wrote: >You will find videos and pictures ( SMOT with the steel ball running on a.... JL, I notice in your video that the ball appears to accelerate quickly just as it is leaving the picture to the left. This implies that the N-gauge exit track is sloping downhill. Right? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 16:15:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 16:09:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 17:15:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l Subject: Re: More on roll-away. Resent-Message-ID: <"fV_-Z.0.4P5.USqbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7962 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 5 Jun 1997, Terry Blanton wrote: > > I have noticed that the amount of roll-away is dependent on the ramp width on my > toy. A wider ramp causes the ball to move up the ramp slower because the ball > has to make more rotations since the ramp contacts the ball more toward the > sides than the bottom. A 1/2" diameter ball only makes about 2.5 rotations to > move 4 inches on a table; but, a good deal more rotations result from the side > rail contact. > The 'Smallest Gauge "Train-Track" in our town' is "Z-gauge" about 1/3 again smaller than the N-gauge track... it's getting pretty small for big fingers though.. maybe Greg was right, everything would be 'back-wards' with an OU device... I already feel li ke I'm making a 'little atom!' LESS RAMP / LESS MAGNET / LESS FRICTION for a Go-Zoom-Zoom device. Sorry Tim Taylor Fans.. se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 16:33:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 16:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 19:32:37 -0400 X-Sender: richarda@mailhub.icx.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: richarda@icx.net (Richard Austin) Subject: Re: skin effect Resent-Message-ID: <"paEYE.0.Zn3.Cpqbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3698 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Looks like hollow wire would be desirable. Similar to the "hollow-fill" insulation used to replace goose down, only made of copper. >>> >>> --------------------- >>> Forwarded message: >>> Subj: skin effect >>> Date: 97-06-02 17:12:06 EDT >>> From: HLafonte >>> To: Newman-L@emachine.com >>> > >>I don't know where this thread originated so I may be repeating info, >>but from hi-fi research I recall that the 'skin-effect' is frequency >>related; the higher the frequency then more surface area is an >>advantage. Hence multi-stranded speaker cable. Avoidance of interference >>between low and high frequency currents taking different paths along a >>conductor are the reason for using separate cables to low and high >>speaker units in recent equipment. >> >>Cheers, geoff > >>> Evan, >>> I haven't read everything about the wire issue, but just in case someone >>> hasn't explained it, the current travels on the surface of the wire (skin >>> effect), and stranded wire has more surface area than a solid wire of same >>> cross section. This is the reason for less resistance to current flow. >>> Butch LaFonte > > Interestingly enough, tests have shown (but I can't remember who did >them) that although the RF current flows on the outside of the wire, it >also wants to flow on the outside of the entire bundle of stranded wires >as well. > > The tests showed that if the individual wires were bare copper, the >current tended to "jump" from strand to strand as each individual strand >"dived" into the mass of the entire wire. The RF current "wants" to >stay on the outside of the entire conductor. Although the initial RF >resistance for clean copper was fairly low, as the wire aged and >corroded, the effective RF resistance increased greatly due to the >inter-strand corrosion. > > However, if the wire strands were insulated individually, the initial >RF resistance was usually higher than that of the bare-conductor wire >mentioned above, but it stayed constant because the wire did not corrode >with age and exposure to the elements. > > The general result was that if you used a solid wire with the same >surface area as the combined area of the stranded wire, you would >achieve the same, or lower, RF resistance. Further, as the wire >corroded, the RF loss increased less than did the loss for the stranded >wire. > > Ralph Hartwell Richard Austin -- email: richarda@icx.net -- radio: KG7SU Check out the Institute for Planetary Renewal at http://user.icx.net/~richarda X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 21:14:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:13:39 -0700 From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Flexible magnetic strip & SMOT Date: 05 Jun 1997 23:41:10 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"0mEq-1.0.HF1.ovubp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3701 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com With little time to experiment I had a single SMOT happily performing with a climb the height of a ball-pen's diameter but at 12mm climb the ball leapt off to one side or the other depending upon (rough) adjustment. I put a piece of flexible magnetic stri p on the inside of the built-up magnets (100mm long from 4 x 20 x 5 x 3 deep + steel strip) and hey-presto, easy-peasy drop-off at 12mm climb. I have bought 10m of strip and will experiment with it more. Although it may need plenty of layers to achieve sufficient BH it's cheap enough at UK1.80/m, 10mm wide x 3.5mm thick. I believe I have found one answer to the lack of time for experimentation problem; get the kids interested. Unfortunately the one who won the school's science prize this year is doing exams until the end of next week but then she'll be completely free for the rest of the summer! I'm afraid my son's interest is fuelled by thoughts of a magnetic ball-bearing weapon of some sort. I'll get him a train set; N gauge, of course. ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 17:27:13 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 17:27:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darknet.net: Host pool76.primeline.net [207.81.5.76] claimed to be bmts.com.bmts.com Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 20:25:14 -0400 From: Steve Reply-To: darklord@darknet.net Organization: DarkNet Technologies To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: caduceus coils Resent-Message-ID: <"radkr.0.CX5.Wbrbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3699 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Can anyone tell me where I can find instructions for winding a caduceus coil? I've read the article on KeelyNet, but it's not specific on how to actually construct one.. eg. are the wires connected to the power source? (most likely) At the other end of th e ferrite rod are the wires soldered together? Can anyone who has built one, and is experimenting with it, give me any tips on how to make one? thanks.. -Steve darklord@darknet.net X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 23:14:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:13:46 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 16:13:26 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: Scott Little cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Rollaway criteria Resent-Message-ID: <"mH4fL2.0.Ue4.Pabbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7936 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Scott Little wrote: > At 12:09 PM 6/5/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: > > >Do the rollaway experiment I have just posted. It will give you a drop > >height to shoot for. > > It looks from the drawing as if you don't have any magnets around in this > drop-height test. Doesn't that totally invalidate the results. Our balls > usually BARELY drop off the end of the ramp because they are so strongly > attracted to the upper ends of the magnet array. > > With no magnets, you could just set the 12mm U-track down flat on the table > and push the ball off of it onto the N-gauge track and you'd get a lot more > than 100mm rollaway, right? > > More confused than usual - Scott > > > Hi Scott, I've also had no luck in linking (though I haven't given it a serious try). For the roll away though I found that a rail 3 mm below the exit of a ramp proving 12-13 mm lift will allow a roll away. My magnets are the same JAYCAR variety Greg uses. I foun d this by lifting by lifting the the ramp 3 mm above the table on both entry and exit. I can't get enough lift from my crude SMOT ramps to do this in one step and I have not been able to link two ramps at the same height at all. I might try the Blanton arrangement or the short track Greg talked about today while waiting for the kit. I think the Chevron arrangement is a waste of time. Cheers Martin X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 17:48:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 17:43:35 -0700 Date: 05 Jun 97 20:41:05 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Cheap SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"fJwp_3.0.Xn1.tqrbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7965 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Martin Sevior wrote: >>I've wasted a lot of time on this.<< Sorry. Terry X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 15:55:54 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:54:59 -0700 From: "johan@plea.se" To: "'freenrg-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: OU-linkpage Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 00:54:24 +-200 Resent-Message-ID: <"6HFek2.0.Gm4.2Fqbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3697 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com http://www.plea.se/~johan/lev2/s3.html Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\OU-LINKP X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 18:35:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 21:29:05 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cheap SMOT References: <970606004105_76016.2701_JHC118-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"IV9Ky2.0.YS.VVsbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7966 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Terry Blanton wrote: > > Sorry. > > Terry Remember, Terry, Vortexing is never having to say "I'm sorry."!! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 18:42:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:40:56 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 21:41:40 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT v1.03 - Rollaway test References: <199706052314.SAA10144@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"L8kF_2.0.v45.dgsbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7967 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > JL, I notice in your video that the ball appears to accelerate quickly just > as it is leaving the picture to the left. This implies that the N-gauge > exit track is sloping downhill. Right? > Another point to a guy ignorant of N-gage specs - does the BALL center ride at the same height in the N-gage track as it does in the aluminum rail - I'm trying to say, is the height of the BALL the same during roll-a-way as it was at the insertion?? Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 18:59:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:50:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 21:49:56 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT v1.03 - Rollaway test References: <199706052314.SAA10144@natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"Dgq63.0.g86.Ppsbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7968 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, Jean-Louis, in my last post I forgot to thank you for the excellent visuals on your SMOT pages - they have been a great help in understanding what is going on!! So, THANKS!! Frank Stenger X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 19:40:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 19:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 11:29:24 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT v1.03 - Rollaway test References: <199706052314.SAA10144@natasha.eden.com> <33976AD4.1E79@interlaced.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"H5FPF3.0.IR2.7Stbp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3700 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > Scott Little wrote: > > > > > JL, I notice in your video that the ball appears to accelerate quickly just > > as it is leaving the picture to the left. This implies that the N-gauge > > exit track is sloping downhill. Right? > > > > Another point to a guy ignorant of N-gage specs - does the BALL center > ride at the same height in the N-gage track as it does in the aluminum > rail - I'm trying to say, is the height of the BALL the same during > roll-a-way as it was at the insertion?? > > Frank Stenger Hi Frank, I selected the N gauge track based on it having the same internal spacing as the 12mm Alum "U" channel. Then both have a 9mm internal spacing. Now that we seem to be getting a few same height, level rollaways, we need to move on to the NEXT goal. Rollaways 1.5 to 2mm ABOVE the entry height. Its OK to roll from 1.5 to 2mm up down to 0mm up, but NO lower! Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 19:44:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 19:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 11:29:24 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT v1.03 - Rollaway test References: <199706052314.SAA10144@natasha.eden.com> <33976AD4.1E79@interlaced.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"H5FPF3.0.4O2.ORtbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7969 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > Scott Little wrote: > > > > > JL, I notice in your video that the ball appears to accelerate quickly just > > as it is leaving the picture to the left. This implies that the N-gauge > > exit track is sloping downhill. Right? > > > > Another point to a guy ignorant of N-gage specs - does the BALL center > ride at the same height in the N-gage track as it does in the aluminum > rail - I'm trying to say, is the height of the BALL the same during > roll-a-way as it was at the insertion?? > > Frank Stenger Hi Frank, I selected the N gauge track based on it having the same internal spacing as the 12mm Alum "U" channel. Then both have a 9mm internal spacing. Now that we seem to be getting a few same height, level rollaways, we need to move on to the NEXT goal. Rollaways 1.5 to 2mm ABOVE the entry height. Its OK to roll from 1.5 to 2mm up down to 0mm up, but NO lower! Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 21:42:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:40:55 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:39:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Cheap SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"-Nelb.0.NO2.LJvbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7971 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 02:03 PM 6/5/97 EDT, Terry Blanton wrote: >Michael Randall asks: > [snip] >Hmmm. . .you have made me think (which is dangerous for an engineer). My entry >point is higher than my impact point; so, each time I lift the ball back to the >entry point, I impart some potential energy to the ball. As the ball falls off >the ramp, it is still influenced by the magnets, which, like a pendulum string >can translate the momentum imparted by gravity. I guess the only way to be sure >we have an anomaly is to "close the loop" since quantifying these small energies >in a single ramp can be near impossible. Or, I could get a larger ball or >smaller magnets. > >Unfortunately, like Rick, my real-world responsibilities have precluded further >smotting for the time being. > >Terry > Hi Terry, I tried your set-up and see what you were saying about a simple OU/anomaly test. At a given height the ball if droped would impact X energy and stop bouncing. For an ou/anomaly with a smot ramp, at the ramp entry height the same as before and the ball go es up the ramp and gets launched off the end, bounces off the table and rolls away Y distance. Thereby X + Y > X. Interesting! But like you say it doesn't "close the loop" or some might not agree with the quantifing of the energies made with one ramp. Too me it makes sense and looks like extra energy coming from the system from somewhere, plus it was easy to build. Thanks for the info. Michael X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 21:59:47 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:59:21 -0700 From: Bmd2323@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 00:58:42 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"-pN4h.0.yO3.davbp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3702 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Howdy! Art's never posted photos of his "parts" floating, just talked about it. I don't know how much I trust him. No hard evidence on this, just simple paranoia, I suppose. Anyway, he has had detailed reports on the pieces on his program and on his site. Haven't bothered to peruse them so I can't say what's in them. (I can tell you that the field strength he claimed to be necessary was high enough that I'd be concerned abo ut health factors.) He's also had photos of a frog hovering in a high powered magnetic field. I don't know if he's still got those up there or not. They came from a major university's site and so are probably legit. Bmd2323@aol.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 23:06:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:03:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: SMOT v1.03 - Rollaway test Resent-Message-ID: <"mzago2.0.Fb3.kXwbp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7973 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Jean-Louis, Good work! Your video and pictures look great! From the way the ball accellerated up the ramp it looked like it could rise an additional 2mm rise at the exit with a roll to 0mm with room to spare! Looking forward to hearing more of your work! Sincerely, Michael Randall At 01:28 PM 6/5/97 -0400, Jean-Louis Naudin wrote: >Hi All, > >Today, I have built my SMOT v1.03 device with a smaller magnet ramp ( 160 mm) >than the v1.02 ( 200 mm ) as Greg said in a previous email about the length >of the magnetic ramp, I have been able to conduct successfully the rollaway >test with ONE unit ( rollaway = more than 180 mm with a aluminium U channel, >and more than 400 mm with a straight plastic railroad ) > >You will find videos and pictures ( SMOT with the steel ball running on a >railroad ) at : > > http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/s103jln.htm > >Next step.......the closed loop..... > >Sincerely, > >Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) >Email : JNaudin509@aol.com >my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ >WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 02:10:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 02:08:54 -0700 X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 02:09:21 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: How to do Roll-Away tests Resent-Message-ID: <"5Fo2T3.0.2H1.bEzbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7977 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I agree At 04:00 PM 6/5/97 -0700, you wrote: >JUst thought I would point out that the proper way to do >a roll away test is to point the track in some direction >and insert the ball at point A, and let it roll away to point >B. Then, take the setup over to point B, direct it >back at point A, and now get the ball to roll from entry >point B back to point A. Going both directions like this >eliminates the possibility of simply roling down a hill and >mistaking it as roll-away: > >Test 1. > > *A ------------> B > >Test 2. > *B ------------> A > >* = starting location of ball. > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 03:42:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 03:42:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: rmuha@mail Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 06:41:13 -0400 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: ralph muha Subject: Re: Pepto - Bismuth) Resent-Message-ID: <"_2AgF.0.KD.sb-bp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3703 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >that I'd be concerned about health factors.) He's also had photos of a frog >hovering in a high powered magnetic field. I don't know if he's still got >those up there or not. They came from a major university's site and so are >probably legit. they are from the high-field magnet lab at nijmegen univ. (amsterdam) see http://www-hfml.sci.kun.nl/hfml/levitate.html X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 04:21:27 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 04:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 20:47:44 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Version 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"fYyoR2.0.6p.9A_bp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3704 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Its a long weekend in OZ land. Queen's birthday on Monday. The work with the shorter ramps and Terry's stacked arrays looks good. I hope to be able to announce early next week a much improved SMOT design with rollaway via a SINGLE ramp. Will keep you informed. The improved design will ship with the SMOT kits. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 06:18:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 06:17:17 -0700 Date: 06 Jun 97 09:14:30 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Cheap SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"8HEfR2.0.Gk.St0cp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7980 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall said: >> Too me it makes sense and looks like extra energy coming from the system from somewhere, plus it was easy to build. Thanks for the info. << Thanks for your verification!! The problem with my setup is the difference in Gravitational PE between the impact point and the entry point. I have been arguing that this is not translating into roll-away energy; but, some people are not reading my argu ments. Thanks again! Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 01:59:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 01:58:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 22:55:08 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"IVGu43.0.So2.3BIcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8000 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael - You quoted my: > Can you have continuous linking without eventual > array convergence or blue hole drop-through regauging? > I think that's what it comes down to. Well, Greg's RMOD as per those GIFs is basically a rotary ball feeder to the ramp(s). That's great if it works mind you, but what I was wondering about there were the more general aspects of the design of rotary devices having many active elements ("ramps ") ganged up to provide something approaching useful torque. Also, as far fetched as it may seem (and AFAIK), there's still the question of gravity versus other restoring forces for the ball. But with things like the Cunningham device or the whipping-crea m/cake-frosting can proposal, the SMOT experience so far seems to indicate that they will have some serious problems. However, if a simple SMOT *can* truly add extra energy to the ball, then a well engineered version of the basic concept shown in the RMOD GIF should work, because in its important aspects, it's pretty much the same thing. I know that must sound like a silly thing to argue in light of the fact that Greg's had one up and running, but for the rest of us...it's still kind of hard. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 09:03:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 08:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 08:55:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: SMOT Version 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"apw1I.0.nf1.0D3cp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7982 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, Yes, this is the way to go for simplicity of your SMOT design. Great idea. Looking forward to your progress. Michael At 08:47 PM 6/6/97 +0930, you wrote: >Hi All, > >Its a long weekend in OZ land. Queen's birthday on Monday. > >The work with the shorter ramps and Terry's stacked arrays looks good. >I hope to be able to announce early next week a much improved SMOT >design with rollaway via a SINGLE ramp. > >Will keep you informed. > >The improved design will ship with the SMOT kits. > > >Greg > > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 06:09:57 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 06:07:51 -0700 Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 09:05:49 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: darklord@darknet.net CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: caduceus coils References: <339758EA.5A31@darknet.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"V8_4c2.0.RO.ck0cp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3705 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Steve wrote: > > Can anyone tell me where I can find instructions for winding a caduceus > coil? I've read the article on KeelyNet, but it's not specific on how to > actually construct one.. eg. are the wires connected to the power > source? (most likely) At the other end of the ferrite rod are the wires > soldered together? Can anyone who has built one, and is experimenting > with it, give me any tips on how to make one? You have both points exactly right. Both leads of one end are connected to the coil driver, what ever that might be for your application. The two leads at the other end may be shorted, but your driver must match the very low impedance presented to the coil. There are a few tricks that are used here. You can short the non-driven end with a impendance matching resistor of the same value as the drivers impendance. I do not reccomend this approach however. This puts the two coil wires at different voltages, a s the applied voltage will be dropped across this impendance matching resistor. The result appears to be an imballance between each wires E fields. What works far better in my experiance is to place the series impeadnace mathinc resistor between the 'cold' end of the coil and ground. This floats the coil above ground by the applied voltage. The resulting 'signal' can often be detected more easily w ith this method of termination. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 09:37:57 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:36:36 -0700 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:32:27 +0800 (SGT) X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Mpower Subject: try again Phil... Resent-Message-ID: <"zb3na1.0.iw7.Jo3cp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3707 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Phil Merry (SYD) posted the following (edited for brevity) at 11:36 1997.06.06 -0600: > > > ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 10:35:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:30:44 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:30:01 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: radius with N gauge Resent-Message-ID: <"o-oCO.0.dz1.3b4cp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3708 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, What is the shortest radius you can get with the flexable N gauge track? Thanks, Butch X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 08:34:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 08:31:05 -0700 From: Phil_Merry@oti.com (Phil Merry (SYD)) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com ('freenrg-l') Organization: Object Technology International Inc Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 11:36:46 -0600 Subject: Read: Unidentified subject! Resent-Message-ID: <"z4XhV2.0.sg5.tq2cp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3706 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 10:54:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:52:58 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:51:27 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Run time Resent-Message-ID: <"SE7A32.0.W25.sv4cp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3709 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, what is the longest time you have ran the SMOT in closed loop? 1 hour, ect. Thanks, Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 17:14:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 17:12:18 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:11:57 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex -l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cheap SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"Y4G2O1.0.Z_7.XNrbp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7964 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 5 Jun 1997, Terry Blanton wrote: > > Hmmm. . .you have made me think (which is dangerous for an engineer). > My entry point is higher than my impact point; so, each time I lift the > ball back to the entry point, [snip] Geeze Terry! We've been trying to get this fact out of you for a week! You only have an anomaly if the impact point is level or higher than the point at which you start the ball. I think we should forget this arrangement and concentrate on short SMOT's. I've wasted a lot of time on this. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 14:50:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 14:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Jun 97 17:40:13 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: SMOT alternative approach. Resent-Message-ID: <"c6k1c3.0.G-6.eH8cp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7987 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Just a small point: anyone who can get same-level rollaway need only use level curved tracks to join two or more of the ramps (or multiramps) together. We don't need clever, we need a closed loop. I just felt it worthwhile to mention that this is an alternative to Greg's higher-level rollaway. Or is it? Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 17:34:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:08:08 -0700 From: "Cyber Computer Networks Ltd." To: Subject: SMOT V2 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 01:01:44 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"CxwA03.0.aU6.dPAcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7990 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have experimented using the layout Jean-Louis is using, his video shows no spirit level so I assume he uses a level bench. His setup looks so simple yet I cannot reproduce the results he gets. Magnet arrays 160 x 25 x 14mm (axis) Ferrite (48 latch magnets). Ball 19 mm steel. Start point +3 to +4mm Roll out Level 0mm Track 190x14mm H section plastic strut. I lose 3-4 mm on the run but it looks close. I cannot get a level rollout yet, if I raise the exit it jumps back onto the magnets. I only get sucessful run every 5-6 attempts, all the rest result in the ball flying around the outside of the magnet arrays, left and right. I tried putting some 4 neodynium magnets on the outside of the array and this caused hot spots on the run. The exit I presume must be a parabolic curve to translate the downward energy into forward energy, I use a 45 Deg. piece of track at present. I will try to get some Alu. U section because I am sure the plastic is not very good. Has anyone got a two ramp version working yet? My brother suggested curving the slope back down from the centre of the run instead of using a drop. Has anyone tried this yet? I have put hours and hours into getting this to work, I just hope everyone else gets a closed loop running and tells me its easy then I can copy what they have done :) I tried using a plastic coated magnetic marble and this actually wheel spins up the track and then sticks to one of the magnets. So that is no good at all. Me thinks its time to nip down to the toy shop for another 50 magnets before they all get sold, then I can build ramp number 2. Rob King X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 13:48:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 13:46:41 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 10:45:24 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop been cl Resent-Message-ID: <"AoQu6.0.aX4.mYScp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8009 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris - > I also find that I can't get single-ramp > rollaway at the same level with the ramps > I have, no matter how hard I try. I understand you have three-ramp traversal at the same level. I assume this means the ball sticks back at the end of the third ramp. Have you tried tilting the whole assembly and trying for a level rollaway from the three ramps you have? It seemed ramps worked better a couple of weeks ago. Then even Tammetta and Naudin could not get their formerly working ramps to perform as they once did. Moon phases? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 14:14:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 14:12:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 11:10:47 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"eLow82.0.2R3.HxScp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8010 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace - Re: rotary designs - All well and good Horace, except for the following: Does any of this really work at all, especially in a closed loop? Connecting ramps head to tail might "do something" with the total geometry of the flux of the magnets, where the apparent net gain of the individual ramps gets "grounded out" by the closed loop connection. I have no reason to believe by way of proof yet that any of these devices are really OU. Even if they are, I have no reason yet to believe the opposite of what I've always heard about permanent magnets and attempts at designs such as these: the magnetic f ields always find a way to be symmetrical with their forces, and you can't 'beat' that system. If Greg's designs do somehow gain energy, I think they're probably doing it in spite of the PM field geometry, which I believe remains true in any case. I'd give the idea that Greg's device beats PM field geometry the least chance of being the reason it w orks, and that's why I think the rotary designs probably won't work. They operate in a continuous head-to-tail wheel, and Greg's successful designs don't. I think it's more likely the energy is from an unseen open-system source - EM or magnetism perhaps, than from tricking PM fields. The magnetic circuitry of the device could be open to the larger environment, finding both a source and a 'sink' or ground fo r extra magnetism. That would require that the ball surface through the blue hole as often as possible for contact with elements of the proper 'polarity'. Greg has indicated that the short ramps work better, which tends to support this notion - a smaller ramp-time to blue-hole ratio. Then there's the possibility of gravitational PE being gathered by having some sort of room temperature "Tampere" effect happening on the ramps, also not contraindicated by the behavior of the shorter ramps and more frequent blue hole contact. And of course there's always the long sought ZPE. All highly speculative, but these things go to the design and engineering of the devices. They must be built to take advantage of whatever it is that works. I tried some flat horizonal elbow ramps the other night. They used KE as a means of energy storage, rather than gravitational PE. It wasn't hard to link a couple of them, but a loop of four 90 degree elbows would not close at all, not even close. I think this provides a model of what would happen in a rotary design, and I even had a very good replication of the ball's exit path out the blue hole as in a normal ramp. All of a sudden people are having trouble making their ramps link and work. I mentioned moon phases to Chris. I wouldn't completely rule out some form of lunacy at work here, whichever way you want to read that. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 21:43:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:36:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"3olrX3.0.IZ1.bLEcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7995 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 08:57 PM 6/2/97 EDT, Terry Blanton wrote: >Rick asked: > >>>Can you have continuous linking without eventual array convergence or blue >hole drop-through regauging? I think that's what it comes down to.<< > >We might find the answer when we get to see the RMOD. > [snip] Hi Terry, Didn't you see Greg's posts on his preliminary idea of his rotary (RMOD Mark I?) design? It was his gifs Rotor1.gif and other Rotor gifts. If you didn't see it let me know and I'll re-send it. It had a ramp with a possiblity of a wheel in the center for torque takeoff. Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 12:47:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:44:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 14:08:10 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"T2fao3.0.i47.Lkmcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8055 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris - > I think that's all a bit silly. > Why speculate on a source of energy? Not silly. Because the nature of the energy would then give clues as to the construction and adjustment of successful devices, and vice-versa. It's more the first item I'm interested in at this preliminary stage. The clue "won't work with horizontal ball travel, but will work with vertical ball travel" if true and confirmed, strongly indicates those wheel methods won't work, and that gravity might very well be required as the restoring force as opposed to elastic forces or armature/ball KE. See? Saves tim e on dead ends and guides us in the right direction. > No, they are not having trouble. One person has reported > trouble getting back to where he was, and I'm not surprised. No, two people have; Naudin and Tammetta. They put up AVIs of their work, and then reported difficulty reproducing and linking. > I think you are just blowing a smokescreen. What interest do you suppose I have in screening something? What's to hide? I'm just trying to find out what's going on here, and find out the best way to build and adjust SMOTs. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 23:03:44 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:29:12 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: neotech@xbn.shore.net, newman-l@emachine.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Greg Watson's Home Page Resent-Message-ID: <"zcERT2.0.CW5.DcFcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3711 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Here is my first attempt at a home page : Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ Will load more as I further develop the page. Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 22:48:32 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 22:47:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "WESLY" To: Subject: something new Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:05:06 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"C7w603.0.V35.uNFcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3710 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com TO all: Does anyone have details of how to build your own solar cells? And is the list down or just bored? Hasn't been much traffic. thanks wes X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 23:36:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:35:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Greg Watson's Home Page Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"-kzst.0.UY6.V5Gcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3712 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com At 03:29 PM 6/7/97 +0930, you wrote: >Hi All, > >Here is my first attempt at a home page : > > Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ > >Will load more as I further develop the page. > > >Greg > Hi Greg, Nice page! Its getting there. Soon you'll be booked with traffic, for info, SMOT & RMOT sales orders! Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 12:46:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:44:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 14:56:25 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"tfnMV3.0.W47.Kkmcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8054 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace - > If you can connect on the flat you can connect on the round. That assumption may be false. We are building magnetic circuits here. My guess is that they are open systems. They are apparently connected to an exterior larger circuit loop of some sort, and this loop is apparently providing the energy. If we close our small SMOT loop with continuou s linking, we might kill the effect since we've cut that larger loop out of the circuit. You might be claiming that the energy appears in the circuit as a consequence of those elements operating in, of, and by themselves no matter what the potential is at the ends of the system, but the things I've seen so far suggest this isn't so. If you make the potential the same at the ends of the system by making the system endless (circular), you've got flat net potential. In other words, it may be important to leave the system open to the environment, with the ends at different magnetic potential. That way we've got a 'plug' of sorts to insert into that mysterious larger loop. Energy seems to come in from somewhere in the environment in this case. If this is true, you'll need a source and sink in order to get energy to flow so you can tap off a percentage of it. There are two main loops. One is the energy gaining circuit, the other is the energy tapping circuit. If this we re a water wheel, The *ball* going around is our wheel sans the buckets - one loop. The *ramps* are our buckets on the rim of the wheel - the other loop. There has to be an entrance and an exit for the water to flow, so don't ever close that second loop. You'll open the first loop when you use your newly harvested energy (it's already open a bit due to it's own friction). Look at the entry to the first ramp. You see high magnetic potential 'as if' it were a simple electrical potential. Balls enter at that potential. They exit the low potential in the stronger B field end by dropping out the last blue hole, and move in a rollaround more or less free of the fields in a really big 'deep blue' blue hole, where they can gain some of that potential back that they had at th e start (somehow). You could probably build an analog of a magnetic SMOT with static electricity, gathering it inductively from the air to a conveyer of charge carrier elements at one end, and grounding it off at the other - a sort of self propelled van d e Graff. But if you close that energy-gathering loop up, cutting off from your source and sink, and you get nothing. (Admit it Chris, this is making sense, and suggests design parameters to strive for.) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 00:01:32 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:27:25 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Greg Watson's Home Page References: <199706070635.XAA11174@norway.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"zZG8J.0.lD7.6TGcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3713 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > > At 03:29 PM 6/7/97 +0930, you wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >Here is my first attempt at a home page : > > > > Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ > > > >Will load more as I further develop the page. > > > > > >Greg > > > Hi Greg, > > Nice page! Its getting there. Soon you'll be booked with traffic, for info, > SMOT & RMOT sales orders! > > Michael HI Michael, I haven't been able to get the visitor counter to work yet. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 03:58:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 03:57:41 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 06:57:06 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Bad news about my rollaway test :-( Resent-Message-ID: <"y2OMi.0.KE5.awJcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8001 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 06/06/1997 03:23:49 , Epitaxy wrote : << I would like to see how much above the table is the entry track and also would like to be able to see if the level of the entry track is equal/less than the lowest point of the rollaway track. I am sure others will have the same questions. >> Hi Epitaxy, Scott, Craig, Greg and all SMOT'ters The rollaway testing give me headaches.....grrrrr, >:-( Today, I am not able to reproduce correctly my previous rollaway setup ( the 5 june experiment with the SMOT v1.03 ), the only working rollaway test that I am able to do is an N-gauge track exit 2 mm BELOW the level of the SMOT ramp input....... The adjustments of the two short ramps is very very accurate ( because of the strong gradient...) and give me some headaches..... The closed loop experiment is put off until another time !!!! I have updated my web with these informations.... GREG, PLEASE......, POST US SOME PICTURES OF YOUR SMOTS SETUP IN CLOSED LOOP.......If you don't have a video capture board in your PC, you can take pictures with a simple camera and ask for processing your pictures on a KODAK CD-ROM. With this mean, you w ill be able to send us your SMOTs running setup on wonderfull JPEG pictures...... Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 08:43:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 08:41:12 -0700 Date: 07 Jun 97 11:39:17 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Bad news about my rollaway test :-( Resent-Message-ID: <"w-uG82.0.Q73.N4Ocp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8002 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com To: Vortex Jean-Louis Naudin writes: The rollaway testing give me headaches.....grrrrr, >:-( Today, I am not able to reproduce correctly my previous rollaway setup ( the 5 June experiment with the SMOT v1.03 ), the only working rollaway test that I am able to do is an N-gauge track exit 2 mm BELOW the level of the SMOT ramp input....... I would like to be sure of something. Please tell us. In the roll-away test shown on your home page, was the N-gauge track exactly level with input ramp surface? I notice that the tracks slants downward right at the exit. It looks like it drops ~2 mm. At exactly what point was it level with the input ramp? Does it look like this? r r r o o iiiiii o o o o Where: iiiii = input ramp at 0 mm elevation r r r = ramp up o o o = output ramp, starting at +2 mm and dropping to 0 mm elevation. If the output track starts at 0 mm and drops to -2 mm, that is not a valid test. I was testing a level track SMOT on Friday. I sent the ball through the magnet array expecting it would oscillate back. It went through, slowed down, and then gradually sped up again, escaping the magnet array! I thought something funny was going on until I put the magnets aside and placed a ball at various points on the track. It sat still, but when I blew on it or tapped it, it gradually rolled in one direction. It had a sl ight tilt, less than 1 mm in 50 cm, which was enough to cause a bogus roll-away event. I put two sheets of paper under one end of the wood base, to ensure that the slight tilt bias would always go the other way. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 09:14:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:11:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"O2dl12.0.WE.EXOcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8003 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 10:55 PM 6/6/97 -1000, you wrote: >Michael - > >You quoted my: > > > Can you have continuous linking without eventual > > array convergence or blue hole drop-through regauging? > > I think that's what it comes down to. [snip] However, if a simple >SMOT *can* truly add extra energy to the ball, then a well engineered >version of the basic concept shown in the RMOD GIF should work, because in >its important aspects, it's pretty much the same thing. I know that must >sound like a silly thing to argue in light of the fact that Greg's had one >up and running, but for the rest of us...it's still kind of hard. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Rick- Results to date indicate extra energy. We have several researchers independent indications that leads me to believe this. 1. A level ball roll away. 2. A ramp ball launcher. 3. Getting close to closing the loop. As far as powering homes and cars with this technology, we are still aways away. Greg's sims on non gravity restoring device, RMOD Mark II, as reported looked feasable. Looking foreward to hearing more of this so as we can start to solve some real world p roblems. Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 09:27:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 08:21:43 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"5yf3r2.0.4h.liOcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8005 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 10:55 PM 6/6/97, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Michael - > >You quoted my: > > > Can you have continuous linking without eventual > > array convergence or blue hole drop-through regauging? > > I think that's what it comes down to. > >Well, Greg's RMOD as per those GIFs is basically a rotary ball feeder to >the ramp(s). That's great if it works mind you, but what I was wondering >about there were the more general aspects of the design of rotary devices >having many active elements ("ramps") ganged up to provide something >approaching useful torque. Also, as far fetched as it may seem (and AFAIK), >there's still the question of gravity versus other restoring forces for the >ball. But with things like the Cunningham device or the >whipping-cream/cake-frosting can proposal, the SMOT experience so far seems >to indicate that they will have some serious problems. However, if a simple >SMOT *can* truly add extra energy to the ball, then a well engineered >version of the basic concept shown in the RMOD GIF should work, because in >its important aspects, it's pretty much the same thing. I know that must >sound like a silly thing to argue in light of the fact that Greg's had one >up and running, but for the rest of us...it's still kind of hard. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Hey, it doesn't seem silly to me to argue the feasibility of a rotational system! Especially if light of what I wrote May 30: begin quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A partial cross section: Central Vertical Axle Stator X| |X | | | || | | | N || | | -------| ---| |-----------------------------BB | | | --||--| | | | ** || Raceway | | | || | | --||--| ---| |-----------------------------BB | | | -------| | | | S || | | | || X| |X | || BB - vertical shaft bearings for cylinders ** - cylinders equivalent to balls of Hartman US Patent 4,215,330 X - central shaft bearings Earlier I wrote: "To close the loop simply take the design for the flat ramp and warp it around into a vertical cylinder, with the magnetic fields vertical. Mount the "balls" on the rim of a horizontal non-conductive cylinder, say a plastic disk mounted on an axle with good bearings, called the armature. Let the "magnetic ramp" portion of the vertical cylinder (stator) comprize about 2/3 to 3/4 of the circumference of the ball path. Use at least 5 or 6 balls. In this way several balls are in the "ramp" simultaneously, and the pull of several balls, plus the entire wheel momentum, helps each ball exit the "ramp". The "exit" of the ramp would then be bent inwards toward the axle." In thinking about this further, I can see that the "exit" magnet configuration could also be bent in a path radially outwards to achieve an identical ball/magnet relative motion to the flat ramp components, though that seems not as closely analagous to th e original device as bending the magnetic field inward. The identical relative motion is achieved in the new polar coordinate system by replacing x with theta and the distance between the magnet and ball replaced by delta r. The ball travels in a fixed radius R, but the magnet postitions are adjusted to maintain a delta r eqaul to a correponding delta y difference in height of corresponding magnets an the ball. Another point is that individual ball accelerations are not accomodated in the above design. This can be done by replacing the armature disk with rods to the "balls" and then connecting the rods with springs. Thus, the rods could have relative motion li ke helicopter blades. This would permit acceleration in the ramp phase and deceleration in the escape phase, just like with a flat ramp design. Hopefully, going to such extremes is not necessary to achieve an analagous performance. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - end quote I lost the email (there have been so many) that indicated magnet polarity makes no difference in effect (N to the left of ball travel etc.,) but that email is to me evidence the cylinders above don't have to rotate, so the bearings can be eliminated, and the ferromagnetic cylinder above can possibly be most any shape. Also, the rotationaly storred energy, if that extra energy storage mechanism is important, can be made up simply by adding extra mass to the armature. It seems like putting multiple magnet array pairs around the loop in symmetry would accomodate ball acceleration better than springs between a flapping rod based armature with cylinders at the ends of the rods for "balls". For example suppose the armatur e consisted of only a single rigid non-conductive rod or beam with ferromagnetic cylinders at the ends, and suppose the stator consisted of the equivalent of two linked ramps turned vertical and bent into a circular form that maintains the same magnet arr ay vs "ball" distance relationship throughout the loop cycle as for the horizontal version with free balls. Since each of the ferromagnetic cylinders would have the same velocity requirements at the same time, then the needed acceleration through the mag net arrays, and thus the increased momentum to escape the magnet array fields, would be available. Of course there could be any number of arms and any even number of magnetic array pairs, provided the acceleration and thus velocity requirements were all t he same at the same time. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 11:14:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 11:13:40 -0700 From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Greg's SMOT magnets Date: 07 Jun 1997 18:09:09 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"e3hLa3.0.FD.JJQcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3714 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I'm wondering if Greg can say what grade of ferrite his magnets are? It occurs to me that if they're grade 1 then they'll have less than a third the BH of grade 2 or 3 ferrite and replicating his compound magnets by size would be erroneous. I assume this 1-2-3 grading is universal? There's also a DIN rating like '8/22' for grade 1 and '28/18' for grade 2 which is 'BH/IHC' measured in kj/m3 and kA/m. Does a stronger magnet further away equal the same force? I suspect it's not quite that simple with a SMOT! ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 12:18:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 12:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Jun 97 15:14:18 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop been cl Resent-Message-ID: <"7jwCw3.0.WB6.eERcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8008 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Lynn, > Recent postings have given me a "now you see it, now you don't" > impression. I have rollaway, no I don't, woops, my exit was lower > than entrance, one ramp works, two ramps don't, closed loop works > but I have to stop it every now and then to "re pair" my > construction etc. etc. Well, Jean-Louis didn't make his initial rollaway claim quite clear, and is having trouble reproducing it. Epitaxy says he's got one ramp rollaway and hasn't retracted. Having worked on this for a while, I can give a few pointers to the kinds of trouble others will be having. Here are a few: 1. Mechanical instability of the implementation. 2. Difficulty in obtaining identical parts. a) magnet sizes b) ramp sizes c) ball sizes d) magnet material (there are many grades of hard ferrite e) ball material 3. Parameter space. There is no certainty that Greg has found the middle of that space, indeed recent postings suggest that he has found a much better area in that space. But just think of some of them. Do the magnet arrays overlap in the horizontal, or should there be a gap? If so, how big? Just where should the slope in the ramps start, relative to the start of the magnet? In a shorter ramp, should the ramp length still be 14mm shorter than the magnets? For myself, I have had a three-ramp set up with the ball traversing the entire array at the same level - and I check my levelling *very* carefully. I also find that I can't get single-ramp rollaway at the same level with the ramps I have, no matter how h ard I try. Rather than risk wasting a lot of time with the new "improvements" like the Blanton magnet arrangement, I will now go for four ramps and try to raise the final exit. As it happens, I think that if a ball traverses a series of four ramps (maybe even three) at exactly the same level, then this does at least have the *smell* of o-u. As for the question of how long a loop will run before we see it as o-u, well, I suppose that depends upon how you look at it. I see it as a system in which there *is* an initial impetus (no matter how small) and where the accuracy of one's horizontal is crucial - but it remains a system where there is *no* input energy if the loop is close d (and the inital impetus is thus nullified). The only source of energy which I can see in a single circuit of the loop would be *mechanical* - where it got some kind of 'spring' effect from some accidental motion of some part. I may be wrong, but I thi nk that all this magnetisation/demagnetisation idea is rubbish. I have never heard of *any* device which shows such an effect! People who propose a 'conventional' explanation should appreciate that the entirety of their explanation must be conventional. They can't invent a whole new effect in physics and then dismiss the claims as trivial becuase they must be using this new phys ics!! What we can (and must) do is to accept that there are some very conventional physics effects which can at the least *assist* a ball. As Jed points out (and I can confirm), gravity is the one which can subtly confuse. Another is the size of the initial i mpetus. That one is, I believe, quite tiny. And also we have a couple of centuries of people playing with magnets without any clear o-u effect being made public in any sane manner. As to Reed and his car, all the 'funny motor' patents - well, we are al l pretty jaundiced about those. So we are, for very good reasons, very sceptical. On the other hand, we must not propose new and unreasonable explanations for a closed loop. I could be wrong, maybe the thing really would slow and stop after a while for reasons other than simple wear or wobbles. But if it does, that would show that the device was doing some trick like getting mechanical power from demagnetising magnets. That in itself would be an immensely exciting discovery. As to constructed, working loops, I doubt if even Greg has one. He has more important things to do, I suppose, than go back over old ground. What is compelling about all this is to watch a multi-ramp system with the balls merrily rolling along it. Greg's general attitude has been helpful too. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 16:31:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 16:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 00:18:39 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Smot mechanical losses Resent-Message-ID: <"jgACl3.0.yi.xyUcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8020 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, These are major mechanical losses I encountered with the SMOT: 1) Al tracks are wearing very rapidly and become noisy. After rolling 10 times I need to repolish the tracks (I am using 25 mm ball). Main cause of the rapid wearing is the dust and the metal particles. Anything more than "Ssssh" sound means serious drag. 2) Unbalanced tracks. If the edges of the U are not at level causes losses. 3) People using big size balls should round the exit corner proportional to their ball sizes. When the corner is sharp, ball angular velocity greatly exceed the linear velocity on turning the edge and slide. In proper rounding ball angular momentum smooth ly transferred by friction to linear kinetic energy and speed up down the ball. 4) When magnets have not equal strength cause unbalanced forces on ball and increase the friction. To Greg: I visited your nice homepage. I seen the RMOD for the first time. What a smart design! This one will show itself on every toy and hobby store when released soon. Please dont tell us that is a simple one ramp smot. (I think one ramp have no OU effect) Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 14:47:00 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 14:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 07:11:34 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: <199706071611.JAA23419@germany.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"fy0PC3.0.le4.lPTcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3715 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > > At 10:55 PM 6/6/97 -1000, you wrote: > >Michael - > > > >You quoted my: > > > > > Can you have continuous linking without eventual > > > array convergence or blue hole drop-through regauging? > > > I think that's what it comes down to. Continuous linking was NEVER a design goal of my SMOT research. I always worked to a rollaround approach. I don't know if a circle of SMOTS would work. I know the rollaround "C" curved ball return works. I will post more on this today. > [snip] > However, if a simple > >SMOT *can* truly add extra energy to the ball, then a well engineered > >version of the basic concept shown in the RMOD GIF should work, because in > >its important aspects, it's pretty much the same thing. I know that must > >sound like a silly thing to argue in light of the fact that Greg's had one > >up and running, but for the rest of us...it's still kind of hard. Most of you still seem to be hooked on the idea of a loop of SMOTS. Thats ok if you want to do your research in that direction, but its not the direction I have taken. All of my devices to date have employed variatins on the rollaround idea where the ball moves to a very low field on rollaround. In my rollaround testing, I release the ball at the start of the top curve (100mm out from the last SMOT's exit). I then readjust my tilted up linked ramps to work with that entry KE to get a redelivery of the ball back to the starting position. It seems that in doing this, I may have approached the whole project from a different perspective that the rest of you. I will post later today a enhanced series of hints to achieve rollaround. > > > >- Rick Monteverde > >Honolulu, HI > > Rick- > > Results to date indicate extra energy. We have several researchers > independent indications that leads me to believe this. > 1. A level ball roll away. > 2. A ramp ball launcher. > 3. Getting close to closing the loop. I have had 2 independent reports of multi loop operation. I will wait for the individuals to post their results themselves. > As far as powering homes and cars with this technology, we are still aways > away. Greg's sims on non gravity restoring device, RMOD Mark II, as reported > looked feasable. Looking foreward to hearing more of this so as we can start > to solve some real world problems. > > Michael Hi Michael, Remember by request for expressions of interest? It is part of the path to solving those problems and more. Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 14:56:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 14:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 07:22:12 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop been closed or not?? References: Resent-Message-ID: <"zSLH-3.0.xA5.fZTcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3716 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Lynn Kurtz wrote: > > Recent postings have given me a "now you see it, now you don't" impression. > I have rollaway, no I don't, woops, my exit was lower than entrance, one > ramp works, two ramps don't, closed loop works but I have to stop it every > now and then to "repair" my construction etc. etc. > > So help me out here: Does ANYONE, Greg included, have a constructed, > functioning closed loop that lasts longer than the Energizer Bunny, that > doesn't have to be stopped for re-adjustments? > > And if so, why aren't we seeing posts that "it has been running > continuously for xxx minutes/hours/days now"? > > -- Lynn Hi Lynn, I have two research streams going at present : 1) SMOT, which I really never dreamed I would spend so much time on. The best running time I have achieved is 3 hours 27 minutes, but that was with curved ramps. The best I have achieved with 4 linked SMOT ramps is 8 minutes. The design is a "TOY", it was never originally intended to produce loops day in, day out. I was intended to prove my ideas worked and still keep my RMOD work fairly secret. All that has changed and my SMOT Mark II is designed to run day in, day out. I am spending a lot of design time to widen the operational margins as much as I can. 2) RMOD Mark I. Ran for almost 4 days. 3) RMOD Mark I.1. Running now. Hope this helps, Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 15:13:16 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 15:12:19 -0700 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 07:39:21 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop been cl References: <970607191417_100433.1541_BHG46-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"DbMJY1.0.ut7.2pTcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3717 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Lynn, > > > Recent postings have given me a "now you see it, now you don't" > > impression. I have rollaway, no I don't, woops, my exit was lower > > than entrance, one ramp works, two ramps don't, closed loop works > > but I have to stop it every now and then to "repair" my > > construction etc. etc. > > Well, Jean-Louis didn't make his initial rollaway claim quite clear, and > is having trouble reproducing it. Epitaxy says he's got one ramp > rollaway and hasn't retracted. > > Having worked on this for a while, I can give a few pointers to the > kinds of trouble others will be having. Here are a few: > > 1. Mechanical instability of the implementation. > 2. Difficulty in obtaining identical parts. > a) magnet sizes > b) ramp sizes > c) ball sizes > d) magnet material (there are many grades of hard ferrite > e) ball material > 3. Parameter space. There is no certainty that Greg has found the > middle of that space, indeed recent postings suggest that he has found a > much better area in that space. But just think of some of them. Do the > magnet arrays overlap in the horizontal, or should there be a gap? If > so, how big? Just where should the slope in the ramps start, relative > to the start of the magnet? In a shorter ramp, should the ramp length > still be 14mm shorter than the magnets? > > For myself, I have had a three-ramp set up with the ball traversing the > entire array at the same level - and I check my levelling *very* > carefully. I also find that I can't get single-ramp rollaway at the > same level with the ramps I have, no matter how hard I try. Rather than > risk wasting a lot of time with the new "improvements" like the Blanton > magnet arrangement, I will now go for four ramps and try to raise the > final exit. > > As it happens, I think that if a ball traverses a series of four ramps > (maybe even three) at exactly the same level, then this does at least > have the *smell* of o-u. As for the question of how long a loop will > run before we see it as o-u, well, I suppose that depends upon how you > look at it. I see it as a system in which there *is* an initial impetus > (no matter how small) and where the accuracy of one's horizontal is > crucial - but it remains a system where there is *no* input energy if > the loop is closed (and the inital impetus is thus nullified). The only > source of energy which I can see in a single circuit of the loop would > be *mechanical* - where it got some kind of 'spring' effect from some > accidental motion of some part. I may be wrong, but I think that all > this magnetisation/demagnetisation idea is rubbish. I have never heard > of *any* device which shows such an effect! > > People who propose a 'conventional' explanation should appreciate that > the entirety of their explanation must be conventional. They can't > invent a whole new effect in physics and then dismiss the claims as > trivial becuase they must be using this new physics!! > > What we can (and must) do is to accept that there are some very > conventional physics effects which can at the least *assist* a ball. As > Jed points out (and I can confirm), gravity is the one which can subtly > confuse. Another is the size of the initial impetus. That one is, I > believe, quite tiny. And also we have a couple of centuries of people > playing with magnets without any clear o-u effect being made public in > any sane manner. As to Reed and his car, all the 'funny motor' patents > - well, we are all pretty jaundiced about those. So we are, for very > good reasons, very sceptical. On the other hand, we must not propose > new and unreasonable explanations for a closed loop. > > I could be wrong, maybe the thing really would slow and stop after a > while for reasons other than simple wear or wobbles. But if it does, > that would show that the device was doing some trick like getting > mechanical power from demagnetising magnets. That in itself would be an > immensely exciting discovery. > > As to constructed, working loops, I doubt if even Greg has one. He has > more important things to do, I suppose, than go back over old ground. The best I have been able to achieve, with the current SMOT Mark I design, is 8 minutes of rollaround. I achieved 3 hours 27 minutes with 4 curved ramps. Don't ask how to build them, they are REALLY hard to adjust, even for me! The RMOD Mark I ran for almost 4 days. The RMOD Mark I.1 is running now. Clink, clink, clink. > What is compelling about all this is to watch a multi-ramp system with > the balls merrily rolling along it. Greg's general attitude has been > helpful too. > > Chris Hi Chris, Firmly mount your 3 linked ramps on a 10mm craft board base. Needs to be fairly thick and heavy for stability. Get them linked. NOW, lift the exit end of the board in 0.5mm increments. You will be amamzed to find that most linked ramps, so tilted, will give you 1-2mm of extra lift without readusting the ramps. It is important for the ramps to be firmly mounted to the base board. Doing so widens out the margins quite a bit. Remember to use a vertical drop on the last ramps exit. Grind OFF the bottom of the "S" curve. Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 15:22:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 15:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 07:48:22 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop been cl References: Resent-Message-ID: <"YQwhW2.0.0Q6.IyTcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3718 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Chris - > > > I also find that I can't get single-ramp > > rollaway at the same level with the ramps > > I have, no matter how hard I try. > > I understand you have three-ramp traversal at the same level. I assume this > means the ball sticks back at the end of the third ramp. Have you tried > tilting the whole assembly and trying for a level rollaway from the three > ramps you have? > > It seemed ramps worked better a couple of weeks ago. Then even Tammetta and > Naudin could not get their formerly working ramps to perform as they once > did. > > Moon phases? > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI Hi Rick, I think we ALL jumped on the SMOT ramp construction very quickly. Used tape, hot glue, Blu-Tack or whatever to clobber up a rig and got it to work. Well done. Then we played some more and got links to work. Excellent. Then played some more and things started to fall apart. We now know how sensitive the ramps are to adjustment variations. Some of the adjustments are NOT so clear as an adjustment. My SMOT Mark II design, I hope will help to overcome all that, and produce a stable ramp design so we can go further in our testing and verification of my claims. I really do understand ALL the work ALL of you have put in to duplicate my claims and I appreciate it. But now we MUST move onto developing a solid, stable test rig that will produce the same results every time. I am almost there. The SMOT Mark II is looking very good. I have still not been able to get a 1 ramp rollaway, but I am close. Linking two ramps now works very well. Will post the design in the next few days. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 15:26:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 15:23:45 -0700 Date: 07 Jun 97 18:20:56 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop bee Resent-Message-ID: <"eW4Ya2.0.zd.mzTcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8016 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com > I understand you have three-ramp traversal at the same level. I > assume this means the ball sticks back at the end of the third > ramp. Have you tried tilting the whole assembly and trying for a > level rollaway from the three ramps you have? Not really. It's pretty clear that it would not tolerate much of a lift (if any) without more work on adjusting. Remember that Epitaxy said it took eight hours to adjust four ramps - and I believe him! And I've not been able to find that funny magnet p aper over here yet. > It seemed ramps worked better a couple of weeks ago. Then even > Tammetta and Naudin could not get their formerly working ramps to > perform as they once did. > > Moon phases? No. Mine are the same as they were last week. The problem is that an amazingly minor adjustment can alter the whole thing out of recognition. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 15:26:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 15:23:41 -0700 Date: 07 Jun 97 18:21:00 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"OETvO1.0.Od.izTcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8015 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick, > I think it's more likely the energy is from an unseen open-system > source - EM or magnetism perhaps, than from tricking PM fields. > The magnetic circuitry of the device could be open to the larger > environment, finding both a source and a 'sink' or ground for > extra magnetism. [et cetera et cetera] I think that's all a bit silly. Why speculate on a source of energy? If the thing works, and it feels as if mine is on the edge of that (OK, OK, I do know) then we have a very simple system: a ball is pulled into higher gravitational potential, with enough KE to make it pass from a high magnetic field to a lower one which will not support the weight. The field can be plotted (with a probe if we don't like sims) and we know the force of gravity on the ball. The energy imparted by falling under gravity is translated into KE and a higher gravitational PE. So, before calling in C of E and therefore some energy transfer *into* the system, we must show that the system can't work without new energy coming in. We can move the ball slowly through the magnetic field and measure the magnetic forces on it at all p oints, then calculate its velocity and acceleration at every point. If such a study shows that the system will not work, then we need to find the source of energy. But, if it shows that the system *does* work - do you have a problem with that? I'd find it wildly funny, but it wouldn't bother me much. Don't burn your bridges before you come to them, Rick. > All of a sudden people are having trouble making their ramps link > and work. No, they are not having trouble. One person has reported trouble getting back to where he was, and I'm not surprised. Either he earlier mistook a below-level rollaway for a same-level one, or he has lost the adjustment - and neither would surprise me. And now people are coming scuttling out of the woodwork with triumphant little smiles, implying they'd said, "I told you so," when some of them hadn't. I rebuilt more rigidly, and am back where I was a couple of days ago - but with a better chance of making progress. > I mentioned moon phases to Chris. I wouldn't completely rule out > some form of lunacy at work here, whichever way you want to read > that. I think you are just blowing a smokescreen. For all the very good reasons I've listed, I am highly sceptical of the SMOT *and* by the "explanations" posted here for it. Equally, I'm very impressed by the multi-ramp and to a degree (despite the fact that some terrible people like Meyer can sound quite sane) by Greg's attitude. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 16:21:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 16:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Jun 97 18:47:20 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop bee Resent-Message-ID: <"TGMaZ1.0.D9.2pUcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8018 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, > Firmly mount your 3 linked ramps on a 10mm craft board base. > Needs to be fairly thick and heavy for stability. > > Get them linked. Done that. I use 12.5mm plasterboard (paper-faced plaster). But why are you now saying three ramps? Wouldn't the original four be better? > NOW, lift the exit end of the board in 0.5mm increments. You will > be amamzed to find that most linked ramps, so tilted, will give > you 1-2mm of extra lift without readusting the ramps. OK, I'll try that. > It is important for the ramps to be firmly mounted to the base > board. Doing so widens out the margins quite a bit. Yes, I've found that's correct. > Remember to use a vertical drop on the last ramps exit. Grind OFF > the bottom of the "S" curve. Done that too. Thanks for all the suggestions, Greg. I'll try this board-tilting. Regards, Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 16:30:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 16:29:12 -0700 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 15:03:07 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"0qrqc1.0._O2.7xUcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8019 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 11:10 AM 6/7/97, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Horace - > >Re: rotary designs - > >All well and good Horace, except for the following: > >Does any of this really work at all, especially in a closed loop? >Connecting ramps head to tail might "do something" with the total geometry >of the flux of the magnets, where the apparent net gain of the individual >ramps gets "grounded out" by the closed loop connection. If you can connect on the flat you can connect on the round. In the limit, as the diameter -> infinity, the round is the flat. This applies to both the flat circular track approach and to the flipped up sideways "cylindrical" approach I proposed earlier . As Chris said, you could connect 360 ramps into a circle, and they would only have a skew of one degree. I really can't belive closing the loop could possibly kill the effect - provided the effect can not be killed by a sufficiently long linear system. That is because, if the loop is, say, 100 m in diameter, there is no way ramps on one side of the loop could significantly affect those on the other side. > >I have no reason to believe by way of proof yet that any of these devices >are really OU. Even if they are, I have no reason yet to believe the >opposite of what I've always heard about permanent magnets and attempts at >designs such as these: the magnetic fields always find a way to be >symmetrical with their forces, and you can't 'beat' that system. The only evidence we have is numerous people have spent thousands of dollars each on the patent process, and we have Greg's word he closed the loop. Actually, I put a whole lot more stock in the latter than the former. > >If Greg's designs do somehow gain energy, I think they're probably doing it >in spite of the PM field geometry, which I believe remains true in any >case. I'd give the idea that Greg's device beats PM field geometry the >least chance of being the reason it works, and that's why I think the >rotary designs probably won't work. They operate in a continuous >head-to-tail wheel, and Greg's successful designs don't. Uh, Greg did say he closed the loop didn't he? I wouldn't count any single shot device as ou without the blessings of thousands of experts. There are too many ways to deceive yourself. True, I would use straight track and/or pendulum experiments and d ata in a personal search for a rotary design, but would never propose a single shot device as ou without huge supporting data. > >I think it's more likely the energy is from an unseen open-system source - >EM or magnetism perhaps, than from tricking PM fields. The magnetic >circuitry of the device could be open to the larger environment, finding >both a source and a 'sink' or ground for extra magnetism. That would >require that the ball surface through the blue hole as often as possible >for contact with elements of the proper 'polarity'. Greg has indicated that >the short ramps work better, which tends to support this notion - a smaller >ramp-time to blue-hole ratio. Then there's the possibility of gravitational >PE being gathered by having some sort of room temperature "Tampere" effect >happening on the ramps, also not contraindicated by the behavior of the >shorter ramps and more frequent blue hole contact. And of course there's >always the long sought ZPE. All highly speculative, but these things go to >the design and engineering of the devices. They must be built to take >advantage of whatever it is that works. A widely distributed set of researchers with working closed loop devices is very important to development of a meaningful theory. Personally, I do believe in calorimetry, and think such will answer many questions, as will data aquisition on field transie nts, etc. I think a higly refined supercomputer finite element model will also mandatory. All this undoubtedly awaits confirmation from a good number of reserchers that the loop is closed. We have to be sure this is a reproduceable scientific phenomeno n, and not some kind of researcher dependent non-reproducible PSI phenomenon. > >I tried some flat horizonal elbow ramps the other night. They used KE as a >means of energy storage, rather than gravitational PE. It wasn't hard to >link a couple of them, but a loop of four 90 degree elbows would not close >at all, not even close. I think this provides a model of what would happen >in a rotary design, and I even had a very good replication of the ball's >exit path out the blue hole as in a normal ramp. > >All of a sudden people are having trouble making their ramps link and work. >I mentioned moon phases to Chris. I wouldn't completely rule out some form >of lunacy at work here, whichever way you want to read that. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI There are other possible explanations. It was still April 1, 1997 here in Alaska when Greg first posted his ou claim. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 16:46:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 16:45:36 -0700 Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:35:48 +0200 X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: BHT magnetic flux converter measurements Cc: newman-l@emachine.com Resent-Message-ID: <"VGyAX.0.L43.WAVcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3719 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, I just came back from measuring the whole day (about 12 hours, uff) our new BHT ( Bauer, Hartmann, Tiede) magnetic flux switch generator. We have got about 60 to 70 measurements today and we changed many parameters to see what happens with the input power into the driving DC motor and the coil output power. There are some pretty interesting effects. Tommorow I will post a few first results, when we have calculated all the inputs and output powers from the measurements. Today I just will post a few photos grabbed from Mini DV camcorder tape of the BHT flux switch generator. Stay tuned. Best regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 17:44:07 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 02:33:00 +0200 X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: BHT magnetic flux converter measurements Cc: newman-l@emachine.com Resent-Message-ID: <"J8O4l1.0.9y2.r0Wcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3721 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, I am just transfering 25 JPEG pictures of our BHT magnetic flux switch device to: http://www.overunity.de/bht Please have a look over there for these JPEG pics, which you can just display by clicking them with Netscape or MS Internet Explorer. The first measurements results will be soon online. Best regards, Stefan Hartmann. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 17:51:53 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:51:07 -0700 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 10:18:03 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop been closed or not??] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"_iL2r.0.pB5.v7Wcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3722 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Received: from ihug.co.nz (ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.4]) by orca.microtronics.com.au (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA26976 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 08:46:38 +0930 (CST) Received: from port344-Auck.ihug.co.nz (port344-Auck.ihug.co.nz [202.49.255.90]) by ihug.co.nz (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA26654; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:18:44 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970608035833.0bf78590@ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: ksmith@ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 11:10:49 -1100 To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au, epitaxy@localaccess.com, dequickert@ucdavis.edu, catware@worldonline.nl, billb@eskimo.com, harti@harti.com, puthoff@aol.com, little@eden.com, bshannon@tiac.net, jnaudin509@aol.com, mrandall@earthlink.net, gwatson@microtronics.com.au, ksmith@ihug.co.nz, ddeleo@ix.netcom.com, Bill Wright , Robin van Spaandonk , Bob Schweitzer , Quinney From: Ken Smith Subject: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop been closed or not?? >> So help me out here: Does ANYONE, Greg included, have a constructed, >> functioning closed loop that lasts longer than the Energizer Bunny, that >> doesn't have to be stopped for re-adjustments? >> >> And if so, why aren't we seeing posts that "it has been running >> continuously for xxx minutes/hours/days now"? >> Hi All, Just a few more thoughts on the SMOT ramps and links. To put my own 2c worth into the picture. I have several working ramps, all will link and I can just get a level runoff, but not enough potential or kinetic to perform a loop back - but it is close. I have tried and tried to improve the performance. I have used N gauge rail, plastic rail, alumi nium U channel. Every time I think I have an improvement in one area, then something else changes and (of course) performance suffers. I have tried various magnet configurations - I have made a magnetic indicator screen with two layers of glass filled with iron filings to try and see the interactions between the ramps. Ramps that won't run as a single - link beautifully and ramps that r un and exit perfectly on their own - will not do micky when linked. Short magnet arrays work better than long ones, but then the lift is applied over a shorter span so the net result is similar. S curved exits give good exits, but are touchy. Straight lips are solid, but lose energy on the drop. All in all it is very, very touchy technology. I have no doubts that there is something here - but at the moment I (for myself at least) feel that I am shooting blind. I know what the target is, but I can't see the end of the barrel clearly enough to point it properly. I have recently torn down all my ramps and started over in trying to stabilise a design that gives (to my mind) the best lift / exit parameters. But there are some strange paradoxes. Weak magnets give a poor lift angle, but good, easy to adjust exits. Strong magnetic arrays give super lift angles , but are almost impossible to exit without loosing all that was gained. My guess is that we will f ind that in the SMOT configuration there is a finite gain to be had. Two converging magnet arrays SN NS will only give you so much - and it is so little, that the whole thing has to be made like a watch in the end to get that energy out reliably. You ma y hit the sweet spot now and then by accident, but then with something just changing a fraction, the whole thing goes off the boil. Hence the varied and confusing feedback. Funnily enough this whole affair reminds me of my early days playing with Tesla Coils. I knew they worked - I had seen them, but could I make it happen. I tried and tried and everything looked sweet enough, but the thing would not ring. Then I learnt t he RULES and understood the relationships that had to be intact to make the resonance happen. Now I can put a Tesla together and make it fire straight out of the box, if you like, and I know just where it will tune and what changing a small part or spaci ng will do - and how to get back in tune. Indeed one of the most convincing demonstrations with a Tesla is to start it just off tune. It just sits there and buzzes quietly to itself and in no way appears threatening or active. I then just move the prim ary tap connection one turn and switch on again, and all hell lets loose. I think our little SMOTTies are a bit like this just now. Sooner or later we will (between us) find out some fundimental RULES for all this and know what HAS to be so and what can be played with and how the relationships between ramp angle, convergence, lip shape, magnet strength / length and all those other factors that we can't even begin to understand yet - relate. When this happens it will all settle down. Then we will see some consistancy in results. I would like to bet serious money that no two SMOTties are alike out there. Even mine, that are superficially identical and jigged, are different and have, almost, their own personalities (perhaps I should name them and get it over with - let's face it they seem to have taken over my spare time..). So while GRUMPY runs well on his own and HAPPY and SMILEY like linking together. NODDY gets the best rollaways, but B IGEARS is the best lifter. I don't know at this point why. Two steps forward - one step back. One thing that is most valuable though is the interaction of this internet networking. However I would prefer to see some negatives along with the successes. For I genuinely believe that the mistakes and failures can be better pointers in the way forwar d than the good bits. Sooner or later one of us will come up with some solid improvement or RULE and then we will all move forward a notch - at least I hope so. Ken Ken Smith (ksmith@ihug.co.nz) http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~ksmith X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 17:55:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:53:58 -0700 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:53:51 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT ramps act as one giant ramp? Resent-Message-ID: <"BhaMe1.0.CM5.aAWcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8022 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 7 Jun 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > As it happens, I think that if a ball traverses a series of four ramps > (maybe even three) at exactly the same level, then this does at least > have the *smell* of o-u. Hi Chris! I agree. Recent discussion about flat "herringbone" magnet arrays suggests that the SMOT ramp array has an overall magnetic gradient similar to the herringbone, and as the ball rolls along the ramps, it falls deeper and deeper into an energy w ell. If true, then releasing the ball at the first ramp would give it enough stored energy to make it over the peak of all succeeding ramps. If friction was zero, the ball would be guaranteed to pass all the level ramps. In an open loop rollaway-measurement system having *extremely* low friction, releasing the ball at the first ramp might create a "pseudo-rollaway" where after the finally dropoff, the ball rolls for a distance that is a good fraction of the length of the entire array. (I'm visualizing the array of ramps as being like one large ramp, and with one large ramp the ball might perform a partial rollaway of one ramp-length.) So, in order to be strong evidence of o/u, a rollaway length must be much longer than t he entire set of ramps. Releasing the ball at the start of the *final* ramp would eliminate the net magnetic potential effects, since that position would be deep into the energy well. But such a position would also eliminate any possible o/u "kicks" created by each ramp. > I may be wrong, but I think that all > this magnetisation/demagnetisation idea is rubbish. I have never heard > of *any* device which shows such an effect! I finally agree too, with small reservations. Visualize a flywheel with a spring attached to its edge and to the earth. The flywheel could be turned a half-turn and released, and the spring could drive it forward for part of one rotation. But the sprin g could NOT act as an initiator of multiple rotations unless its attachment was released before the flywheel made a complete turn. Where in a closed-loop SMOT system might we find a nonlinearity which is equivalent to a streched spring which pulls the ba ll forward when the ball is at one particular spot, but which does NOT pull when the ball again passes that same spot in the loop? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 18:10:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 18:10:07 -0700 Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:00:19 +0200 X-Sender: harti@shell2.ba.best.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: BHT magnetic flux converter measurements Cc: newman-l@emachine.com Resent-Message-ID: <"XbAAb.0.M16.jPWcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3724 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, does anybody know, where we can buy a cheap HALL sensor to measure the magnetic flux density inside our BHT flux circle ? How much is a HALL device with the right interface electronics ? Please let me know. Thanks ! Regards, Stefan. P.S.: BTW, we used Neodymium and Alpha-Neo magnets in our flux switch, so we also varied the flux density inside the airgaps ! -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 18:06:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 18:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 10:31:58 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: <199706071611.JAA23419@germany.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"Q8x5X.0.Xe3.YLWcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3723 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Greg - > > > Continuous linking was NEVER a design goal of my SMOT > > research. I always worked to a rollaround approach. > > I seem to recall something about curved ramps. Was there to be a rollaway > section there too? Sounds like that kind of design would lead to a > continuous linked loop. My first loop was using curved ramps and curved connecting links. There were 6 ramps and the diameter was around 1 mtr. The max loop time I got out of this setup was 3 hours and 27 minutes. Building and adjusting curved ramps is NOT easy. The curved m ag arrays reduce adjustment variations (when you really need more) in a BIG way. > > It seems that in doing this, I may have approached the whole > > project from a different perspective that the rest of you. > > Yes! And it's this fact, this very difference that I keep harping on, > because that's the clue to where the energy comes in to the thing, and the > clue as to how to engineer them. It tends to show that circular or such > continuously linked devices will fail. It says that the more blue hole we > see, the better. It *suggests* that gravity may be the only restoring force > that works, but released facts so far don't isolate that out as well as I'd > like. My own horizontal 'ramps' seems to suggest it though. Can you say > more on that yet? I think I recall you saying that the RMOD II doesn't use > gravity as the restoring force. Have you tested an element of this design > and seen this work, seen clear sign of OU or energy gain on a > non-gravitational PE design? The RMOD Mark II is not based on ramps. There is another way to build a magnetic gate which shows strong preference to the directional passage of ferromagnetic material. > - Rick Monteverde Hi Rick, The RMOD Mark II is still theory. I am building a proof of theory device at present. As a hint, it is almost all ferrite based. Ferrite rotor, ferrite stators. NO direct exposure to HARD aligned domains. As a sort of reverse hint, try removing the rear steel strip in the SMOT ramps and watch what happens. Its all in SOFT domain alignments. Greg X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 18:09:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 18:08:36 -0700 From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 18:10:03 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! References: Resent-Message-ID: <"5RO_a.0.Nx5.JOWcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8024 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com If magnet is regarded as pump for ether and the ether varies with phases of moon, then a variation in behavior with time of month could be noted. If true for women why not SMOT's X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 20:52:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 20:51:02 -0700 X-Sender: ewall-rsg@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Ed Wall Subject: Please answer the question, Barry Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:27:40 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"ntNXx3.0.wn4.ZmYcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8026 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com >> Which is the lower energy state of an object: magnetized or unmagnetized? Merriman's response: > >This is a trick question. Perhaps, but the answer given is a lot trickier. >At the macroscopic level, the greater the >magnetization, the greater the field strength and thus the greater >the energy. Thus energy is a increasing function of the bulk >magnetization. However, at the microscopic level, what if a given >atom or tiny magnetic domain is not aligned with the local field, >it is energetically favorable for it to align itself, somewhat >contrary to the macro behavior. Pleae help me understand. Entropy is a measure of a system's capacity to undergo spontaneous change. Doesn't that mean that under the influence of an external field, as the magnetic domains align, that the entropy is increasing, but not the energy? The energy is the total ability to do work (useful or not) by all of the magnetic domains. As the alignment increases, the usefulness of the combined magnetic domain's fields increases, but the ability to do work, which is energy, by convention, is null for a conservative field. Kinetic energy gained as the ball accelerates into the positive magnetic gradient is lost as it gains it's potential energy back in retreating from the field (less losses). The idea of energy being transferred into the ball from the field is not conventional in any physics I studied. However, I have not studied QM much beyond effects concerning communications or solid state devices. You seem to imply that order increases energy. Isn't there the same potential magnetic field en ergy in the randomized domains? > >Thus, the lowest energy state {lowest entropy, but why energy state?} > is to organize the material into >microscopically aligned domains, which themselves are randomly >oriented. The energy is then an increasing function of how well >aligned these microdomains are. At the other end of the spectrum, >perfect alignment of all atoms is not the highest energy state >of the system---if it was in that state, you could up >the energy even more by misaligning one single atom. > The energy state of a system is defined, so either the magnetized state is more energetic or it isn't. My guess is that you mean to say that the energy for the overall system does not change and that the energy of the ball is reduced macroscopically, increased microscopically, evidenced by its alignment, though why perturbing that alignment would increase its energy is beyond my recall of thermodynamics. Ed Wall X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 21:01:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 20:53:49 -0700 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 21:42:51 -0500 (CDT) From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"sqAvQ3.0.iC5.xoYcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8028 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com You wrote: > >If magnet is regarded as pump for ether and the ether varies with >phases of moon, then a variation in behavior with time of month could >be noted. If true for women why not SMOT's > > 6/7/97 It's not true for women, so why would it be true for SMOTs? RWW X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 17:10:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 17:09:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 14:07:29 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"fdbgr3.0.hO1.vcqcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8074 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace - > Now *that* is an assumption! Calorimetry will tell, > assuming a closed loop system is widely replicated. I think all ideas on how SMOTs work are assumptions. Is a hypothesis not a temporary assumption? It's what I can use as a guide while trying something out. I'm not saying "this is how it works" like I'm claiming that's the whole story. Nor is it just idle speculation for its and ego's own sake. I just make trial assumptions and work on where they lead. Like this one: the more blue you get, the better. Have you tried a horizontal elbow yet? Easy to make with heat formable plastic. I used Sintra. I tried them in a closed circle, but not in a left-right-left-right linear zig-zag array. That might show something. I get the impression from the work I've done that if you 'go away' from the starting point, you get a steady increase in energy. But when you try to bend back towards the start, you see things start to tighten up, and evetually bog in a field lock-up. Not hing will link. Now maybe a circle that's 'loose' enough, and which has deep enough blue hole gaps will work, like Greg's closed loop of curved arrays. In a pump analogy, such a closed loop is like an axial flow turbine, with a space for the working fluid to flow into and out of each vane or 'bucket' without interfering too much with flows around adjacent buckets. The point is that a route IN and OUT is preserved. The ins and outs of a SMOT appear to me to be the blue holes - the more the bluer the better . At least that's my *assumption* now. It may eventually be proven wrong or irrelevant, but I'll use it as a guiding concept as I experiment, and see what happens. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 01:38:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:26:18 -0700 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 23:22:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@blue.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eski mo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: progress (or not) report Resent-Message-ID: <"d0b5O3.0.2r3.boccp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8032 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi gang, Someone requested reports of negative results... I think I can make a contribution or two :-(. It's a mix, actually. 1) My earlier elation at a use for my 2" NdFeB magnets has been squelched. Got really good lift, but exit at entry height was looking impossible. Field contours on the strong magnets don't work out. Related topic - ceramic magnet grades. I believe the Radio Shack ceramics that I first used were Grade 1. The new ceramics that I just received are Grade 5. Though they are a much better size (shorter height) they are much more difficult to get positive r esults. A big stack of very weak magnets seems to be better at the effect than a single strong magnet. Now, it would be interesting to figure whether that's merely because of field contours or some other property. *Less* mag field thru the ferrite and bal l works *better*. This leads me in the direction of Greg's latest hint of the nature of his Mark II rotary research. 2) Short-but-steep ramps are interesting but present problems of their own. Now the angle of the drop is drastically changed. Too steep a ramp, and the gravity vector on exit is all wrong. So this moves us in the direction of using something other than gravity, which moves us out of the realm of simple ramps. 3) The good news: I have had a level rollaway. I have linked 3 ramps. Mine *like* to be linked . The bad news: not stable. Linked ramps not exiting level with input. Reasons: all different, cobbled-together and many-times-changed to incorporate differe nt ideas. Things get ragged pretty quickly, and as mentioned by others adjustments are critical. Balsa wood is fun stuff but can't handle all the bouncing around that happens with large magnet arrays and metal objects. If your balls get too close to a NdF eB magnet array, things hop and you've gotta find new holes for the straight pins. 4) One possible reason some of us report good results and then get real quiet: for me, at least, it's because I had to use the parts from the success to try the next great idea presented on the list here. Then that didn't pan out, but I moved on to other ideas. There *was* a level-to-input rollaway ramp, but its parts got used. I measured and drew it out well enough so I believe I can return to it, I hope. 5) I'm a ramp-release klutz. Have not been able to get a ramp of any reasonable lift to release with the magnet center even with the center of the ball, as specified by Greg. I have to have the ball's center *above* the magnet's center. Anyone else seen t hat? 6) Question: I've seen mention of *plastic* N-guage track? Any specific suggestions where that might be found? I found the metal kind but it's real hard to deal with making vertical bends. 7) Question: Greg mentioned that the stacked-magnet configuration of Terry Blanton's had an X-Y curve more favorable than that of Greg's magnet array. Can someone explain to me why? (part of my interest in this is because that configuration is so very close to that posted by me on 4/10/97 in my report of my first ramp, and duplicated by others at that time. Maybe I need to go back to where I began? Am I closing a loop?). Conclusion: Still plugging away, learning. Next step is standardizing on my best ramp and making several solid copies. Closed loop would be fun but when I get there I want it to be robust and not dependent on humidity. Heading quickly toward personal over unity, sitting in the house all day staring at magnets and eating fresh basil pesto. Garden tip of the week: a 3' x 6' bed of basil is more than one (formerly) skinny person needs. Dan P.S: Some will be happy to hear I am no longer using Microsoft Exchange to post to the list, so there will be no more unwanted MIME-encoded garbage appended to my messages. All of the senseless b.s. in my messages is now from my own hand. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 01:26:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:25:34 -0700 From: Bmd2323@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 02:36:09 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: something new Resent-Message-ID: <"8o1z-2.0.7g3.rnccp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3728 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Howdy! Lindsay Publications carries a book that details how to build your own solar cells. Its called, oddly enough, How to Build a Solar Cell That Really Works by Walt Noon. Its a mere $4.95 plus $1.00 shipping. Their address is: Lindsay Publications, Inc. PO Box 538 Bradley, IL 60915 They've got two catalogs. One's one metalworking, the other is entitled Secrets You're Not Supposed to Know. Both of them are fantastic and I can't say enough about the company. You can visit their web site at: http://main.keynet.net/~lindsay/ Bmd2323@aol.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 00:50:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:50:00 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:47:48 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: harti@bbtt.de Subject: Re : BHT magnetic flux converter measurements Resent-Message-ID: <"8kwDQ1.0.kD5.YGccp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3726 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 08/06/1997 02:25:38 , Stephan wrote : << Hi, does anybody know, where we can buy a cheap HALL sensor to measure the magnetic flux density inside our BHT flux circle ? How much is a HALL device with the right interface electronics ? Please let me know. Thanks ! Regards, Stefan. >> Hi Stephan, You will find below some specifications about Hall Effect probes : * Hall effect probe : SIEMENS type SV 110/3 current max : Im = 50mA current average : I = 25mA sensibility in open circuit for B tending to 0 : about Kbo= 50 V/A.T residual voltage for B=0 and I=25mA : Vo<10mV dimension : crystal of InSb : 3x1.5mm, support : 9x4.5x0.5 mm * Omnidirectional Hall effect probe (for electronic compass) : ref : 6945 : digital probe ref : 6070 : analog probe you will find this device at : Pewatron ------------- Hertistrabe 27 CH-8304 Wallisellen/Zurich phone : 41 (01) 8.30.29.44 fax: 41 (01) 8 30 51 57 Mullerstrabe 43/II D-80460 Munich phone: 49 (089) 2 60 38 47 fax : 49 (089) 26 90 71 I have some electronic schemes, I can sent it to you in next email, if you want.... I hope that these informations will help you, Sincerely yours, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 00:50:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:50:16 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:48:43 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Linked SMOTs Qfield Resent-Message-ID: <"eNK6U1.0._E5.pGccp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3727 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi SMOT'ters You will find in my web server at : http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/lnkrsim.htm some QField about linked ramps, lnksmd.gif : flux density pictures of two linked ramp lnksmfdx.gif : flux density curve along the neutral zone lnksmpot.gif : potential along the neutral zone lnksmed.gif : energy density along the neutral zone Magnet used : ferrite barium, anisotropic, coer. : 160 kA/m, perm : 1.1 Steel backing. Comments : lnksmd.gif : see the BIG blue hole BETWEEN the two ramps, it is bigger than the exit of the second ramp, lnksmfdx.gif : the curve of the flux density show that the middle blue hole is the reason of the major problems in linking ramps, because of magnetic flux interactions. lnksmed.gif : the interesting thing to notice is that the final energy density at the end of the second ramp is BIGGER than at the end of the first ramp, even if this energy density is equal to zero between the two ramp. This remind to me some experiments about "stepped charged capacitors", the entropy of a system tend to zero if the number of steps tend to infiny ( cf : F. Heinrich "Entropy change when charging a capacitor" ( thanks David D.)) "He showed that when a capa citor in a RC circuit is charged to a final charge in steps, then smaller the voltage steps are, the low energy is dissipated in the resistor. In the limit of infinitesimally small voltages steps, there is no dissipation ( no entropy change )." I hope that these informations will interest you, Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 01:05:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 02:10:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT V2 Resent-Message-ID: <"a70pq2.0.rs5.dUccp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8031 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Cyber Computer Networks Ltd. wrote: > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 01:01:44 +0100 > From: "Cyber Computer Networks Ltd." > Hi All, > I have experimented using the layout Jean-Louis is using, his video shows > no spirit level so I assume he uses a level bench. > His setup looks so simple yet I cannot reproduce the results he gets. >------snip > I only get sucessful run every 5-6 attempts, all the rest result in the > ball flying around the outside of the magnet arrays, left and right. > I tried putting some 4 neodynium magnets on the outside of the array and > this caused hot spots on the run. > The exit I presume must be a parabolic curve to translate the downward > energy into forward energy, I use a 45 Deg. piece of track at present. ------------------ ROB, To Find the "BLUE-HOLE" (exit) put your ramp's 'drop-off' behind the total length of the magnetic strips on either side... When you first see a run away effect, you CAN actually get a accelerated or (Zooming) effect. It may may or may not be 'parabolic' in shape, but when the ball enters, it 'maintains' all previous gained momentums, volocity's, mass and even GAINS with the 'drop-through' ADDITIONal xxxx.. suggest you slide your side magnets foward until you, until y ou get a run-away, then PULL back a fraction to increase the speed of the output for maximum roll-away! > I will try to get some Alu. U section because I am sure the plastic is not > very good. > > Has anyone got a two ramp version working yet? > Yes I have 2 ramps working (actually gone to rotory mostly now(trying)): the theory?- (greg's blue-hole discovery) -should let ANY MAGNETS/ ANY SIZE/ any type RAMP -plastic or Metal (Au)- WORKS!! > Me thinks its time to nip down to the toy shop for another 50 magnets > before they all get sold, then I can build ramp number 2. > Rob King I think we should all invest in Magnetic Industries (early -eh?) before it's too late.. se X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 02:36:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 02:35:37 -0700 X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 02:35:53 -0700 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: BHT magnetic flux converter measurements Resent-Message-ID: <"d8w-d2.0.-l5.epdcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3729 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Take apart a broken video cassette player. Hall sensors are routinely used in the capstan and video head motors. At 03:00 AM 6/8/97 +0200, you wrote: >Hi, > >does anybody know, where we can buy a cheap >HALL sensor to measure the magnetic flux density >inside our BHT flux circle ? > >How much is a HALL device with the right >interface electronics ? > >Please let me know. > >Thanks ! > >Regards, Stefan. > >P.S.: BTW, we used Neodymium and Alpha-Neo >magnets in our flux switch, so we also >varied the flux density inside the airgaps ! > >-- >Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann >Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany >Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 >email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 02:44:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 02:44:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 02:44:22 -0700 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Water for brain works well Resent-Message-ID: <"5VSLQ3.0.d01.Gydcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3730 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Yes, I have read about the "water head" as well. Why is this such a small deal ? A person without a brain shouldn't be able to live, see, talk, pass a simple arithmetic test or get a BSc degree. How can such an occurrence be ignored, no matter how rare it is ? This should flip our science inside out ? ...anyone...Barry ? At 11:17 PM 6/7/97 EDT, you wrote: >Frederick, >"Is it possible that our brain cells are using this interaction with the water >in our brains, and if we get dehydrated we become stupid? : -) >" > >I heard from a reliable source (I'll see if I can find the name) that an >anacephalic, a person born with only a brain stem, can function quite >normally and at least one has a BSc. The cranium is filed with fluid but no >cells. > >Also be aware that a lot of people are dehydrated and many diseases are cured by > >rehydration (There are currently two books available on this subject) > > >-- Mike -- > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 16:48:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 16:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 97 11:45 NZST X-Sender: srae@shoppe.mlb.planet.gen.nz (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: srae@mlb.planet.gen.nz (Stuart Rae) Subject: Test - Ignore Resent-Message-ID: <"GOlsQ3.0.nL1.CCVcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3720 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Test X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 04:49:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 04:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 21:15:07 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: progress (or not) report References: <199706080622.XAA17039@guilder.ucdavis.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"NGLxe2.0.bO5.fmfcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3731 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Dan Quickert wrote: > > Hi gang, > > Someone requested reports of negative results... I think I can make a > contribution or two :-(. It's a mix, actually. > > 1) My earlier elation at a use for my 2" NdFeB magnets has been squelched. > Got really good lift, but exit at entry height was looking impossible. Field > contours on the strong magnets don't work out. > > Related topic - ceramic magnet grades. I believe the Radio Shack ceramics > that I first used were Grade 1. The new ceramics that I just received are > Grade 5. Though they are a much better size (shorter height) they are much > more difficult to get positive results. A big stack of very weak magnets > seems to be better at the effect than a single strong magnet. Now, it would > be interesting to figure whether that's merely because of field contours or > some other property. *Less* mag field thru the ferrite and ball works > *better*. This leads me in the direction of Greg's latest hint of the nature > of his Mark II rotary research. One way of controlling the exit mag field contours under the exit is by varying either the magnet spacing or the width of the arrays. Wider arrays allow easier exits. Wider arrays allow the use of weaker magnets. I posted a series of Gifs showing the e ffect on the "Blue Hole" as the magnet spacing was varied. > 2) Short-but-steep ramps are interesting but present problems of their own. > Now the angle of the drop is drastically changed. Too steep a ramp, and the > gravity vector on exit is all wrong. So this moves us in the direction of > using something other than gravity, which moves us out of the realm of > simple ramps. My findings at present on short ramps is to maintain approx the same exit angle as on the original SMOT design. Could even go steeper, maybe even vertical with a "S" curve. > 3) The good news: I have had a level rollaway. I have linked 3 ramps. Mine > *like* to be linked . The bad news: not stable. Linked ramps not exiting > level with input. Reasons: all different, cobbled-together and > many-times-changed to incorporate different ideas. Things get ragged pretty > quickly, and as mentioned by others adjustments are critical. Balsa wood is > fun stuff but can't handle all the bouncing around that happens with large > magnet arrays and metal objects. If your balls get too close to a NdFeB > magnet array, things hop and you've gotta find new holes for the straight pins. Congrats on the level rollaway. Next step is to mount all the ramps on a solid base board and slowly tilt the whole assy up 0.5mm at a time to get a rollaway 1.5 to 2mm above entry height. > 4) One possible reason some of us report good results and then get real > quiet: for me, at least, it's because I had to use the parts from the > success to try the next great idea presented on the list here. Then that > didn't pan out, but I moved on to other ideas. There *was* a level-to-input > rollaway ramp, but its parts got used. I measured and drew it out well > enough so I believe I can return to it, I hope. I agree. It is hard to return, to go backward. > 5) I'm a ramp-release klutz. Have not been able to get a ramp of any > reasonable lift to release with the magnet center even with the center of > the ball, as specified by Greg. I have to have the ball's center *above* the > magnet's center. Anyone else seen that? Yes, I have seen that. Suggest the top radius is not right for your exit field. > 6) Question: I've seen mention of *plastic* N-guage track? Any specific > suggestions where that might be found? I found the metal kind but it's real > hard to deal with making vertical bends. A quick hacksaw cut 1mm into the back side makes bending easy. > 7) Question: Greg mentioned that the stacked-magnet configuration of Terry > Blanton's had an X-Y curve more favorable than that of Greg's magnet array. > Can someone explain to me why? (part of my interest in this is because that > configuration is so very close to that posted by me on 4/10/97 in my report > of my first ramp, and duplicated by others at that time. Maybe I need to go > back to where I began? Am I closing a loop?). The mag differetial is much more linear from entry to exit. With Terry's config, the ball is pulled up the ramp from any point along the ramp. > Conclusion: Still plugging away, learning. Next step is standardizing on my > best ramp and making several solid copies. Closed loop would be fun but when > I get there I want it to be robust and not dependent on humidity. Heading > quickly toward personal overunity, sitting in the house all day staring at > magnets and eating fresh basil pesto. Garden tip of the week: a 3' x 6' bed > of basil is more than one (formerly) skinny person needs. I have put on 2 kilos since I first released details of the SMOT device. > Dan > > P.S: Some will be happy to hear I am no longer using Microsoft Exchange to > post to the list, so there will be no more unwanted MIME-encoded garbage > appended to my messages. All of the senseless b.s. in my messages is now > from my own hand. Hi Dan, Sound like you are making good progress. Greg X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 05:22:56 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 05:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 21:49:16 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Smot mechanical losses References: <3399C21F.146A24DC@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"fQpwW1.0.eP6.ZGgcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3732 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Hi, > > These are major mechanical losses I encountered with the SMOT: > > 1) Al tracks are wearing very rapidly and become noisy. After rolling 10 > times I need to repolish the tracks (I am using 25 mm ball). Main cause > of the rapid wearing is the dust and the metal particles. Anything more > than "Ssssh" sound means serious drag. I agree. > 2) Unbalanced tracks. If the edges of the U are not at level causes > losses. Correct. > 3) People using big size balls should round the exit corner proportional > to their ball sizes. When the corner is sharp, ball angular velocity > greatly exceed the linear velocity on turning the edge and slide. In > proper rounding ball angular momentum smoothly transferred by > friction to linear kinetic energy and speed up down the ball. Very correct. > 4) When magnets have not equal strength cause unbalanced forces on ball > and increase the friction. Again very correct. > To Greg: > I visited your nice homepage. I seen the RMOD for the first time. What > a smart design! This one will show itself on every toy and hobby store > when released soon. Please dont tell us that is a simple one ramp smot. > (I think one ramp have no OU effect) It is a single ramp, but there are a few more tricks not shown that are needed to make it work. > Regards, > > Hamdi Ucar Hi Hamdi, Good to see you are working through some of the SMOT pit holes. Every one you fill in will result in better performance and more stable operation. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 05:25:53 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 05:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 21:51:03 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Greg's SMOT magnets References: <3037589470.20594435@compcafe.co.uk> Resent-Message-ID: <"cOLvb.0.jX6.oIgcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3733 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Geoff Greaves wrote: > > I'm wondering if Greg can say what grade of ferrite his magnets are? It occurs > to me that if they're grade 1 then they'll have less than a third the BH of > grade 2 or 3 ferrite and replicating his compound magnets by size would be > erroneous. > I assume this 1-2-3 grading is universal? There's also a DIN rating like > '8/22' for grade 1 and '28/18' for grade 2 which is 'BH/IHC' measured in > kj/m3 and kA/m. > Does a stronger magnet further away equal the same force? I suspect it's not > quite that simple with a SMOT! > ---------------------------------------- > >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk > ---------------------------------------- Hi Geoff, I have asked the question of JayCar (my supplier). They are making enquiries. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 07:02:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 07:01:36 -0700 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 22:29:44 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Ramp SIzes References: <3395EB61.1241E2D4@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"AFD2V3.0.wo2.-ihcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3735 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Greg - > > > I recommend experimentation. I am currently testing > > 78mm (6 x 13mm magnets) and 52mm (4 x 13mm > > magnets) mag arrays. So far the results show the > > 52mm array works better. The magnet spacing can > > then be increased, resulting in an even easier exit. > > I'm using magnets that are about 6mm x 9.5mm x 19mm (1/4" x 3/8" x 3/4"). > The closest I can get to the 52mm size with the magnets I have is 57mm > using a 3-by array. Stacking three deep makes the array about 19mm wide. > That sound about right for a 'short' array? Should this get the 3mm steel > backing? And what about the ramp length for that size array? Does "ramp > length" mean the length of the inclined portion only, not counting the flat > part, or does it mean the whole thing including a 20mm flat section? I'm > having a hard time scaling ramps to arrays. Thanks. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI Hi Rick, I find that the ramp length should be around 13-15mm shorter than the magnet arrays. That differential has held for ramps from 50mm to 250mm. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 07:05:16 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 07:01:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 22:33:02 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Run time References: <970606135011_521634785@emout15.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"t7tgQ1.0.yp2.4jhcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3736 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com HLafonte@aol.com wrote: > > Greg, what is the longest time you have ran the SMOT in closed loop? 1 hour, > ect. > Thanks, Butch Hi Butch, The max times for my various devices are as follows : 1) 6 x curved ramps .............. 3 hours and 27 minutes. 2) 4 x SMOT Mark I ramps ......... 8 minutes. 3) RMOD Mark I ................... Almost 4 days. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 07:02:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 07:01:57 -0700 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 22:37:13 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: radius with N gauge References: <970606132912_-228641817@emout08.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"e74TY.0.nr2.Ijhcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3737 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com HLafonte@aol.com wrote: > > Greg, > What is the shortest radius you can get with the flexable N gauge track? > Thanks, Butch Hi Butch, About 100mm. Suspect this depends on the quality of the flexible track. I don't like short radius turns. They loose a lot of energy as one side of the ball skids around. The tighter the radius, the worst this gets. Maybe Nasa Frank can help here. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 07:02:53 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 22:40:13 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Flexible magnetic strip & SMOT References: <1188351771.12137320@compcafe.co.uk> Resent-Message-ID: <"xaIGN3.0.nF2.Fkhcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3738 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Geoff Greaves wrote: > > With little time to experiment I had a single SMOT happily performing with a > climb the height of a ball-pen's diameter but at 12mm climb the ball leapt > off to one side or the other depending upon (rough) adjustment. I put a piece > of flexible magnetic strip on the inside of the built-up magnets (100mm long > from 4 x 20 x 5 x 3 deep + steel strip) and hey-presto, easy-peasy drop-off > at 12mm climb. I don't understand why. Will get a bit and try to duplicate. > I have bought 10m of strip and will experiment with it more. > Although it may need plenty of layers to achieve sufficient BH it's cheap > enough at UK1.80/m, 10mm wide x 3.5mm thick. > I believe I have found one answer to the lack of time for experimentation > problem; get the kids interested. Unfortunately the one who won the school's > science prize this year is doing exams until the end of next week but then > she'll be completely free for the rest of the summer! > I'm afraid my son's interest is fuelled by thoughts of a magnetic > ball-bearing weapon of some sort. I'll get him a train set; N gauge, of > course. > ---------------------------------------- > >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk > ---------------------------------------- Hi Geoff, How far away from the ball is the magnetic strip at exit? -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 06:32:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 05:25:27 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: progress (or not) report Resent-Message-ID: <"ByOPm2.0.tB1.PDhcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8041 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 11:22 PM 6/7/97, Dan Quickert wrote: [snip] > >7) Question: Greg mentioned that the stacked-magnet configuration of Terry >Blanton's had an X-Y curve more favorable than that of Greg's magnet array. >Can someone explain to me why? (part of my interest in this is because that >configuration is so very close to that posted by me on 4/10/97 in my report >of my first ramp, and duplicated by others at that time. Maybe I need to go >back to where I began? Am I closing a loop?). > [snip] > >Dan > They say saying the same thing lots of ways sometimes aids communication, so please bear with me in this possibly boring and repetitious attempt to communicate. To answer your question, two reasons: 1. The stacked configuration approximates the exit end of Hartman's device as shown in the body of his patent, 4,215,330. It is just a shortened version of his design. According to Hartman even better results can be obtained by flaring the final extra (stacked) magnets both on an angle that bulges the field *out* around the drop hole (maget end closest to track pushed forward of outside end) and *up* (away from dropping ball). 2. The stacked configuration is also an approximation of what I wrote: "The identical relative motion is achieved in the new polar coordinate system by replacing x with theta and the distance between the magnet and ball replaced by delta r. The ball tra vels in a fixed radius R, but the magnet postitions are adjusted to maintain a delta r eqaul to a correponding delta y difference in height of corresponding magnets an the ball." In other words, since the ball motion is only *relateive* to the field moti on, it should be possible to change the ball path if the magnets are moved in a manner that corresponds to the ball path change. For example, here is a side view of Hartman's ramp (does not show slight upward tilt): o m m m m m m M M M ---------------- \ ------ m - small magnet pairs astride and perpendicular to track M - bigger stacked magnet combinations with flare o - ball FIG. 1 - Hartman's primary design By the method suggested above I am saying this can be transformed into the equivalent: M M o m m m m m m M ----------------------- FIG. 2 - Level track version per translational method and achieve a similar function. The ball path is bent upward to make it flat, but the magnets are moved upward a corresponding amount also to maintain relative position. (Note that if the drop in FIG. 1 were straight down, then the magnets MMM would be in a vertical stack.) The FIG. 2 device, if performing in an equivalent way, should be capable of ejecting the ball on a level surface if a sufficient mass density of the ball can be achieved. The mass of the ball must be increased to offset the stored potential energy from the rise of the ball in the FIG. 1 configuration. If the ball is made not to roll, but somehow to move frictionlessly, the mass of the ball has to be further increased to offset for energy previously stored in rotational kinetic ene rgy form to maintain equivalency. It is now easy to see that in the FIG. 2 configuration that it should not be difficult to link such ramps: M M M M o m m m m m m M o m m m m m m M ------------------------------------------------------------- FIG. 2 - Level track version per translational method Also it is then a small step to warp the linked ramps into a circle so the ball might travel on a bearinged armature and achieve the "frictionless" motion without rolling referred to above. If the "ball" is then made into a cylinder we have the suggested rotary design: Central Vertical Axle Stator X| |X | | | | | | | | N | | | | ------- | ---| |------------------------------- | | | --||-- | | | | ** | | | | | | | | | --||-- | ---| |------------------------------- | | | ------- | | | | S | | | | | | | X| |X | | | ** - cylinders equivalent to balls of Hartman US Patent 4,215,330 X - central shaft bearings It is then only a matter of making the design symmetrical so the acceleration and velocity requirements are alike and consistent for each segment, because the armature can only have a single velocity. Otherwise, the flapping armature rods with connecting springs method would have to be used, and that sounds like an ugly design at best. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 06:48:42 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:48:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 09:44:56 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Linked SMOTs Qfield References: <970608034841_-1296071184@emout18.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"awENk1.0.Kq1.dWhcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3734 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com JNaudin509@aol.com wrote: > This remind to me some experiments about "stepped charged capacitors", the > entropy of a system tend to zero if the number of steps tend to infiny ( cf : > F. Heinrich "Entropy change when charging a capacitor" ( thanks David D.)) > "He showed that when a capacitor in a RC circuit is charged to a final charge > in steps, then smaller the voltage steps are, the low energy is dissipated in > the resistor. In the limit of infinitesimally small voltages steps, there is > no dissipation ( no entropy change )." Jean-Louis, Is this step charged capacitor not in itself o/u? Same final voltage in the cap w/ less and less energy disipation across the resistor, which is proportional to the current traveling accross it, from the battery to the cap? Am I correct? Dave DeLeo X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 09:21:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 09:20:58 -0700 From: "WESLY" To: Subject: Re: something new Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 09:39:04 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"037YF2.0.Zw6.gljcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3739 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com ---------- > Lindsay Publications carries a book that details how to build your own solar > cells. Its called, oddly enough, How to Build a Solar Cell That Really Works > by Walt Noon. Its a mere $4.95 plus $1.00 shipping. Their address is: SO HOW DO YOU MAKE THEM?? Also I have a collection of [old] Popular Science magazines. In the front of one them is an ad for Edmund Scientific. One of the things they were selling was a kit that consisted of six little 35mm film size containers filled with compost that had a start er added to it, I believe that the container was the anode and there was something that was inserted for the cathode. These six little cells were supposed to produce 60 milli-amps at six volts for over six months. I am assuming that the organic reaction w hen composting takes place that produces heat must also produce electricity. I realize that 60 milli-amps at six volts is not much but if fifty five gallon drums were used instead of these tiny containers, It is possible that a large amount of electricity could be had. As a bonus I suppose one could grow their own food from the rich soil that would remain. DOES ANYONE HAVE THE DETAILS OF HOW THIS IS OR WAS DONE?? THANKS WES X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 10:05:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 10:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 10:02:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: RMOD I Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Attachments: D:\EARTHLNK\EUDORA\ROTOR1.GIF;D:\EARTHLNK\EUDORA\ROTOR2.G IF; D:\EARTHLNK\EUDORA\ROTOR4.GIF; D:\EARTHLNK\EUDORA\ROTOR3.GIF; Resent-Message-ID: <"_Vdaw3.0.JU1.vNkcp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@ eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3740 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com At 12:15 PM 6/7/97 EDT, Terry Blanton wrote: >Michael, > >>>Didn't you see Greg's posts on his preliminary idea of his rotary (RMOD Mark >I?) design?<< > >I was off the list for a week on vacation and tried to catch up via the >archives; so, I must've missed that. If you could email it direct, I'd be >grateful! > >Terry Hi Terry, Here are the attached gifs below. Greg posted these some time ago. He also has one shown on his web page. I guess RMOD Mark I is a wheel in the center with the balls separated by individual fins that pushes the wheel round and round. The center shaft (2mm?) would then be used for power ta keoff. This looks alot simplier compared to the multi-ramps of SMOT! Yes! Michael D:\EARTHLNK\EUDORA\ROTOR1.GIF D:\EARTHLNK\EUDORA\ROTOR2.GIF D:\EARTHLNK\EUDORA\ROTOR3.GIF D:\EARTHLNK\EUDORA\ROTOR4.GIF Content-Type: image/gif; name="ROTOR1.GIF"; x-mac-type="47494666"; x-mac-creator="4A565752" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ROTOR1.GIF" GIF89a¹º÷X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 11:13:36 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:13:11 -0700 From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Who knows .....? Date: 08 Jun 1997 17:16:43 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"ND5v3.0.EN4.sOlcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3741 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com If I put a coil of copper wire around a magnet and pass a current through it will that: 1) immediately add to (subtract from) the magnetic force at the magnet's poles or 2) would the current have to be high enough to produce an electromagnetic force greater than the magnet's existing force to effect a change or 3) something less straightforward? Thank you for any answers. ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 12:05:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: 08 Jun 97 13:37:33 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Magnet strip Resent-Message-ID: <"AhdMt3.0.Wf5.49mcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8050 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, I was wondering if you had considered the possibility of magnets cut to specific shapes - like a wedge, for instance. It might be worth simulating wedge shapes to take the Blanton wedges to their logical conclusion. Or wedges could (for now) be built up from lengths of magnetic strip. Apparently there are two varieties, ones with alternating N and S poles on the same side, and the other which has the same pole along the one side. By the way, I did ask why you now felt three ramps would do as well as your original four? Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 22:33:26 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:33:02 -0700 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 12:56:00 +1200 From: Robbie Rowntree Reply-To: rown@xtra.co.nz To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Test - Ignore References: Resent-Message-ID: <"_Ix-a3.0.cr.DMvcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3750 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com test X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 18:57:00 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 18:56:28 -0700 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 13:56:52 +1300 From: Teague Family Reply-To: teague@es.co.ns To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT: I'm confused: Has the loop been closed or not?? Resent-Message-ID: <"ogd453.0.P97.B5Xcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3725 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, Ken et al Business priorities preclude a SMOT indulgence at the moment. 8-] However, our (whole family) experience with the Hamel demonstration maybe worth considering? I have reported to the List that we had reasonable success with a billiard ball Hamel device. At a meeting with fellow 'explorers', in one of their homes, a demonstration was a flop. 8-( When we came home it worked again... is there something in the air? Subsequent to this I was showing a friend, in our home, and it just wouldn't work. Then there was a realisation that his cellphone was turned on, it worked near enough after it was turned off!! Cheers... Rex X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 13:53:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 13:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:49:48 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"rxzGT1.0.K_1._jncp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8061 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 2:56 PM 6/7/97, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Horace - > > > If you can connect on the flat you can connect on the round. > >That assumption may be false. I am asserting it is a logical conclusion, not an assumption, as you indicate. If any loop is closed it is *not* closed due to a symmetric potential, in fact can only be closed due a non-symmetric potential. Greg says he closed the loop. Ergo, the ou p ortion of the energy process is *not* due to a potential of any kind which is affected by closing a loop. > >We are building magnetic circuits here. >My guess is that they are open >systems. Now *that* is an assumption! Calorimetry will tell, assuming a closed loop system is widely replicated. >They are apparently connected to an exterior larger circuit loop >of some sort, and this loop is apparently providing the energy. If we close >our small SMOT loop with continuous linking, we might kill the effect since >we've cut that larger loop out of the circuit. You might be claiming that >the energy appears in the circuit as a consequence of those elements >operating in, of, and by themselves no matter what the potential is at the >ends of the system, but the things I've seen so far suggest this isn't so. >If you make the potential the same at the ends of the system by making the >system endless (circular), you've got flat net potential. As I and others have said all along, if you have ou it's outside of Maxwell's laws. It has to be an inconsitency in laws, a break in symmetry. I gave my little shots at describing possible logical chinks via Thermal Electromagnetic Drift (TED), and also via the idea of ZPE forces acting directly on magnetic flux tubes to create imbalanced longitudinal forces, or a zipper effect. Puthoff has pr ovided a basis via ZPE recharging or re-inflation of induction deflated obitals. Larry Wharton is looking at the relationship of Maxwell's laws and thermodynamics. I think it is important to keep in mind that the laws of thermodynamics are *assumptions* and, maybe even more importantly, that energy is not a real thing. Energy is only a calculated value. It is a human concept, a form of accounting, not a real worl d thing. There is a difference between a ledger sheet and a factory. [snip] > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI The objective has to be close the loop because otherwise we don't have anything, especially we don't have anything to discuss as to *why* it works since we don't know, scientifically speaking, *if* it works. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 16:23:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 16:23:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Cyber Computer Networks Ltd." To: Subject: SMOT V2 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 00:18:55 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"ui0BK1.0.NB7.Jxpcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8070 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, My single ramp seems to be getting worse so maybe there is something in this Lunar cycle after all. One suggestion is that you put guides at the drop point to prevent the ball flying left or right. You could use a small ring, or series of rings, of copper tube just as it starts its descent. But the length must not be too much as to prevent the level rollout. Two sheets of aluminium may work. I found that if you put the ball into a snug fitting piece of copper tubing over the drop point you can spread the magnet arrays apart until the ball drops, this sets the field strength to that less than the magnets can hold, BUT because the ball may be s tarting slightly higher and therefore already falling slightly then you could bring the arrays in a touch. I will have to get some more magnets ASAP and get a 2 ramp version going like the rest of you, I feel a bit left out playing with just a single ramp while some of you have enough magnets to build probaly ten ramps. I was thinking earlier today that if this SMOT does work as a closed loop then maybe this opens up all the other devices like the John Bendini magnet motor that uses steel shutters to nullify the magnetic field at the right point. The RMOD looks like a cross between a SMOT and a bent version of Newtons Cradle. I guess the chink, chink, chink that Greg refered to must be the falling ball impacting on the semi-circular stack of ball bearings. Still SMOTting away with the rest of you. I think I go to sleep at night counting ball bearings jump over a 15mm high fence :-) Rob King X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 18:45:39 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 18:45:10 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 21:43:47 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: For sale Resent-Message-ID: <"4Z6cE1.0.0J4.Z0scp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3743 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: For sale Date: 97-06-08 21:42:32 EDT From: HLafonte To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ufo, used, one owner, (waterhead), flown only on the moon, (Full moons), low mileage! E-mail Butch (No checks), but will trade for SMOT kits X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 18:57:21 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 18:56:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 11:23:58 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Introduction to RMOD Mark I Resent-Message-ID: <"rotwf2.0.oM7.fBscp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3744 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have attached a Gif. Assuming the ramp is adjusted to "Climb and Drop" conditions. I would like your opinion of what will happen to ball "A" and ball "B". -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 19:35:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 19:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 19:33:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: RMOD Mark I Introduction Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"V8YKj3.0.ut5.5lscp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8088 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 11:26 AM 6/9/97 +0930, you wrote: >Hi All, > >I have attached a Gif. > >Assume the ramp is adjusted to "Climb and Drop" conditions. > >I would like your opinion of what will happen to ball "A" and ball "B". > > >Sorry for the second send, forgot to do the attach. > >-- >Best Regards, > Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ > >Attachment Converted: D:\EARTHLNK\EUDORA\intro1.gif Hi Greg, Interesting! As ball "A" climbs the ramp, the assembly tips down on the left and ball "B", that is locked at the end mag field, falls off the base. As ball "A" exits the ramp end it gets locked at the drop point mag field ("B" ball location). Now all that is needed is to get another ball on the start of the ramp to balance it and to start the motion all over again. How do you feed at the "A" ball point when the assembly is tilted down on the left end at "B" ball location? Best Regards, Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 00:44:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 00:34:47 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: vo rtex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 02:34:52 (-050 Subject: Re: progress (or not) report Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"8_O5J.0.A64.M8xcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8103 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Dan, On Sat, 7 Jun 1997 23:22:52 -0700 (PDT) you wrote, in part: > 6) Question: I've seen mention of *plastic* N-guage track? Any specific > suggestions where that might be found? I found the metal kind but it's real > hard to deal with making vertical bends. My local model train/plane store has various shapes of styrene (I think it is) parts for building bridges and such for model train layouts. One of them is an I-beam that's almost exactly the width of N-gauge track (within fractions of a mm). -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 12:12:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: ben@clubelite.com (Ben Tammett a) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 03:06:17 +0000 Subject: FE Collaborating, Voice Communication Reply-to: tammetta@mindspring.com Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"RW2t7.0.tz5.vEmcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8052 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hello all, Because we are all so spread out across the world, I though It would be appropriate to send information on a great tool that will give us another form of communication to share device information and construction details. I've been experimenting with a great FREE tool that lets you talk and recieve audio and video over the net. It's just as good as a telephone, execpt no long distance charges. I was blow away by the quality! It's very easy to use and very useful It's called *NetMeeting* by Microsoft Get it here: http://www.microsoft.com/netmeeting/nm2/homefeatures.htm To test it. When you have it installed. Press the Call button and copy and paste my address (below) in. I have a full time connection..and am in most evenings US EST. My Net Meeting Address: ils.business.four11.com/ben@clubelite.com Want to discuss my SMOT status? Ben Tammetta ben@clubelite.com ###################### # Ben Tammetta # # ben@clubelite.com # ###################### X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 20:21:38 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:20:44 -0700 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 23:18:13 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: RMOD Mark I Introduction] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"_y1R13.0.AB3.BQtcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3746 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Message-ID: <339B735C.5448@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 23:07:08 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Subject: Re: RMOD Mark I Introduction References: <339B62BB.34E8@microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg Watson wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have attached a Gif. > > Assume the ramp is adjusted to "Climb and Drop" conditions. > > I would like your opinion of what will happen to ball "A" and ball "B". Greg, Thank you for sharing this, I would have to say that: 1. ball A would climb the ramp 2. as A moves up the ramp the whole assembly would tilt toward ball B 3. gravity would pull ball B free of the ramp 4. ball A would continue up (down after the ramp tilts) the ramp and become stuck where B was originaly 5. have another ball feed up to where A was (via a curved stack of balls like the animation on your homepage) and it will balance again until A2 starts to climb........... the loop would be closed That's my first impression from a quick look at the drawing. I may be missing something, its getting kind of late and I need some sleep :) Dave DeLeo ddeleo@ix.netcom.com By the way hows the patent coming.... Must be on its way since your sharing this, otherwise your patent attorney may take away your computer 8-) (or are your patenting the RMOD Mark II instead?) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 20:36:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 07:37:53 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: RMOD Mark I Introduction References: <339B62BB.34E8@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"7Vo-k3.0.-M.uatcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8092 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, If the ramp is fixed and separate from balance frame it is no informative than the RMOD MARK 1 rotary diagram and the animation. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 20:47:11 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:46:23 -0700 From: B777b77@webtv.net (Russell Blythe) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:46:18 -0500 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Johnson Motor Resent-Message-ID: <"l77mQ.0.hn4.Eotcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3747 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Has anyone worked on the Howard Johnson Motor or is it old news that dosn't work? X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 21:57:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 21:56:39 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Bad news about my rollaway test :-( To: vort ex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:55:39 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"0U4zG1.0.qb3.1qucp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8095 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jean-Louis Naudin writes: > Today, I am not able to reproduce correctly my previous rollaway setup ( the > 5 june experiment with the SMOT v1.03 ), the only working rollaway test that > I am able to do is an N-gauge track exit 2 mm BELOW the level of the SMOT > ramp input....... Are you using "fresh" balls? There was a theory floated a few days back that perhaps the system gain its kinetic energy from the balls giving up energy of random magnetizm as the domains lined up in a lower energy state. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 22:34:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:30:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 00:32:37 -0500 From: John Logajan Organization: Skypoint Communications, Inc. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: RMOD Mark I Introduction References: <339B62BB.34E8@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"XEozz1.0.zo.rJvcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8099 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > Assume the ramp is adjusted to "Climb and Drop" conditions. > ... what will happen to ball "A" and ball "B". "B" will be dropped to a point *lower* than the starting point, and "A" will not climb to as high an absolute height. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 23:02:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:01:51 -0700 Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:00:12 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"W70wf1.0.de1.Envcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8100 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 2:07 PM 6/8/97, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Horace - > > > Now *that* is an assumption! Calorimetry will tell, > > assuming a closed loop system is widely replicated. > >I think all ideas on how SMOTs work are assumptions. [snip] >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI\ I have clearly noted my assumptions, e.g. "If Hartman's device works then ...". The rest follows from logical deduction and a little ingenuity in my opinion, unless perhaps we are in the course of watching all the laws of the universe evaporate before ou r very eyes. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 00:00:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:59:06 -0700 Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@blue.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eski mo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Introduction to RMOD Mark I Resent-Message-ID: <"65BRe1.0.G93.vcwcp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8102 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com > >I would like your opinion of what will happen to ball "A" and ball "B". > That depends. The diagram is a bit ambiguous. Is ball B in motion, or trapped by the end-field? Are the ramp and the ball platform one assembly balanced on the fulcrum (case 1), or is the ramp fixed and the ball platform the only moving piece (case 2)? Based on the published "Ferris wheel" diagram, I'm presuming it's case 2 we're dealing with. But just in case:-) Case (1): Assuming both balls stationary to start; further assuming that the ramp/ball/platform assembly is balanced at start: As ball A begins to move into the ramp, balance is shifted to the left. B rolls left, falling off the platform. If ball A is not yet at the balance point, the assembly will tilt to the right and the ball will have a very steep hill to climb - not good. Bu t if ball A has passed the balance point, it will continue thru the ramp, which is now going to be horizontal; it will then pass through the end and fall onto, and probably off of, the platform. ------- Case (2): Ball A moves into the ramp, ball B forces the platform down on the left. The right side of the platform will go up; this may result in ball A getting a bit of a push into the ramp. Ball B then falls off, rolling away to the left. Platform swings back past its balance point to the right, then regains balance until ball A falls out of ramp, onto the platform. Platform then tilts left, ball A falls off and rolls away. This is a one-shot representation of the Ferris wheel arrangement. Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 03:42:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 03:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: 09 Jun 97 05:18:29 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"4UKqn2.0.U2.Rtzcp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8105 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick, > (Admit it Chris, this is making sense, and suggests design > parameters to strive for.) Maybe it would, if I understood what you say. I take a simpler view. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 03:55:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 03:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: 09 Jun 97 05:18:34 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Easy rogue SMOT??!! Resent-Message-ID: <"pq4Ta.0.kN.R1-cp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8106 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick, > The clue "won't work with horizontal ball travel, but will work > with vertical ball travel" if true and confirmed, strongly > indicates those wheel methods won't work, and that gravity might > very well be required as the restoring force as opposed to elastic > forces or armature/ball KE. See? Saves time on dead ends and > guides us in the right direction. Which of course is perfectly valid, but has precisely nothing to do with speculating as to a source of energy - which was what I was objecting to. I repeat: it is inappropriate to speculate on a source of energy, based on the assumption that C of E applies, bedcause C of E is based on the fact that SMOT-type devices don't exist. It's a logical contradiction. Of course, it may well be that there *is* a source of energy "ccoming into" the system and eventually being dissipated in heat and noise, but I still think that the first step is to analyse the device to find the forces on the ball at every point. As to elastic forces, it's pretty difficult to simulate mechanically the accelerative force of gravity. > No, two people have; Naudin and Tammetta. They put up AVIs of > their work, and then reported difficulty reproducing and linking. OK, I missed one. But you'll now have seen the various posts reporting good results and the (mechanical and adjustment) problems people have had in maintaining those good results - these seem to me to be quite fair and reasonable explanations. > What interest do you suppose I have in screening something? I don't think you have any "interest" in that, but I think your posts look like diversions which confuse the main issue. To my mind, that issue is to replicate the basic effect and then to study exactly what the thing is doing so that we can get phenomen ological rules for making better ones - and then, with its behaviour thoroughly understood, make useful devices which exploit the effect. Greg seems to have been pursuing exactly that path, with considerable claimed success. He hasn't worried too much about "the source of the energy," he hasn't got some wonderful new theory, he has been very open and helpful, and he's selling kits for toys . In fact, he sounds like someone who has read all Jed Rothwell's polemics on "inventors' disease," and he's doing *exactly* what we've been begging and pleading with people to do with their machines, cells, and processes. The only thing that I've had r eservations about is his idea of approaching local universities with they toys; but I think I've maybe misread his intentions. I thought he was planning an "in-your-face" approach, or that he expected physics departments to take it seriously. In fact I think that he believes that somewhere someone will take a serious interest in investigating, and I think he's probably right - though I think that this group and its contacts would be more help. I would imagine that if Hal Puthoff had one of these gadgets working, then we would have one very serious physicist involved in studying it; and I think Barry Merriman would do that too. So let's get on with all the boring and tedious filing and cutting and polishing and adjusting - and I know you are pretty damned good at that. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 03:37:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 03:34:57 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Correction on the "The Day After Roswell" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 02:42:47 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"SFQSx3.0.g3.Gnzcp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3752 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Folks, The Colonel's name was Philip Corso. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 03:58:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 03:56:38 -0700 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:49:21 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RMOD Mark I, drawing 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"4V7t73.0.a71.b5-cp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3753 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com HI All, Here is the second drawing in the RMOD introduction. I have included more info than in the first. Comments please. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 01:48:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 01:46:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:44:17 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"imMZb.0.T57.THHdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8141 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Frederick - > I think that when one gets through wading > through this the energy source > for the "roll" will be explained. I doubt it, the SMOTs are too lossy. If they really work, we'll see. Shield 'em 'n roll 'em. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 11:03:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 11:02:38 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Fw: Project IDA Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 11:03:37 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"BYMH-3.0.EQ6.xK4dp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3758 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com ---------- ---------- Hi Folks, My original message bounced, so here it is again. The correction on the author's name (Colonel Corso) got through, making for an inexplicable message. > >The International Defense Alliance (IDA) is using scalar field > >transmitters to ward off invasion by extra-terrestials. > >Although not particularly powerful these fields can readily penetrate > >metals causing disruption of magnetic spin vectors, ie., magnetic > >field properties and other such phenomena. The irony of this joke is that there is a book soon to be published called "The Day After Roswell" written by a Colonel Birce who was a former member of the National Security Council under Eisenhower. According to the book, he was the head of an Army project to secretly funnel technology derived from the Roswell crash into government and industry. This technology, according to the mainstrea m newspaper article I read, included "computer chips", lasers, and composite materials. They were doing this to prepare our society for what they believed was an inevitable war with "space aliens", as the article called them, in true National Enquirer fashion. The book was discussed in the mainstream paper only becaus Sen. Strom Thurmond wrote the preface, and then denied that he believed in the substance of the book. There is a great deal of evidence that the thesis of the book is entirely accurate. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 14:14:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 14:04:05 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:30:52 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: RMOD Mark I, drawing 2] Resent-Message-ID: <"X7tsD2.0.mW2.3_6dp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8120 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sorry, -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ Message-ID: <339BD8A9.3AFF@microtronics.com.au> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:49:21 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RMOD Mark I, drawing 2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HI All, Here is the second drawing in the RMOD introduction. I have included more info than in the first. Comments please. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ Content-Type: image/gif; name="intro2.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="intro2.gif" GIF89aô^÷X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 14:20:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 14:19:56 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: UFO Technology Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 14:19:54 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"2RjI01.0.5U3.wD7dp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3761 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Bob and all, Bob says, in reference to transistors and such being derived from alien technology: There is a clear technological trail for the development of these devices, and there was lots of trial and error as well as pages of theory documenting their development histories. Well, to play devil's advocate, I would say 1) The evidence that one and probably more than one ET spacecraft has crashed on our planet and been retrieved is insurmountable. I personally have talked to two individuals who had been in covert military units who have seen ET bodies in labs. These include a police officer and a Military Intelligence officer. This aspect of the affair is no longer a secret, as far as I am concerne d. 2) Such technology in possession of the government(s) would have had an influence on our tech development even if we didn't understand how it worked. Just knowing that these things were possible would have created a tremendous technical impetus. 3) It's quite possible that certain lines of development could be fostered by covert agencies, while still leaving normal paper trails . After all, there was no necessity to pursue semiconductor development, when vaccuum tubes still had plenty of areas of improvement. In fact, the Russians might be considered a case in point for a technical culture that did not get the "alien influence": they continued to develop vaccuum tubes, and got the semiconductors from us. It's my impression that they are still way ahead of us in tube technology. Actually, I would be quite interested to hear what the thesis of this book actually is Fred I've looked at a couple of UFO sites with info about this book and, if anything, the article appears to have understated the degree of influence purported by the author. We'll have to see when the book comes out (by the end of June, my bookstore says). I investigated the UFO phenomenon pretty thoroughly and have had a some experiences myself, and I realized that it all came down to this: 1) They're here, and they don't believe in the prime directive of Star Trek, in fact their prime directive is to m eddle as much as possible. 2) Some people in government circles know of them and even communicate with them face to face. 3) None of it really matters because ultimately we are left to our own devices--literally :-) I came to the conclusion that it was much more fun and interesting to make our own "alien" technology than to wait for the ruling bodies (and I don't necessari ly mean our governments) to hand down the received wisdom from on high-- literally :-) Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 15:07:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 15:07:32 -0700 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 18:04:06 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Gary motor Resent-Message-ID: <"4qqbw2.0.mn6.Zw7dp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3762 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Does the Gary motor work at all? I was just reading an article that seems to say that it was widely demonstrated. What is the problem with it if it doesn't work? Just wondering, Dave DeLeo X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 15:30:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 15:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: 09 Jun 97 18:11:06 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"shVtt2.0.fK7.R38dp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8123 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mike, > Thus, it is no mystery that the sphere can roll free of the null > line at slightly above its starting height. I can see that, except that there is the question of the losses it incurs in transit, especially if it traverses a series of ramps. Problem here being that it's pretty difficult to quantify either the initial mag PE of the ball, or the losses. Watching it traverse multiple ramps, the *feeling* you get is that the losses are greater than any initial mag PE (because the latter is so ti ny that you almost have to help the thing start) but I can see that this is hardly proof of anything. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 15:31:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 15:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: 09 Jun 97 18:11:09 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"wvrrc3.0.aK7.R38dp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8122 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Frederick, > I think the "artifact-(s)" if not the 1/2 gauss geomagnetic field > is in the background electromagnetic waves, (or both). Are you suggesting that you can get mech power direct from the earth's magnetic field, in a device of this size? And I for one would be marvellously impressed if tapping local radio signals or house power lines could do this trick. We have to ask the same question of such proposals as we ask about the "over unity" behaviour of the teh SMOT: if such things are practical with just a few magnets and a ball-bearing, why has nobody demonstrated them before? A radio/mains-tapper machine which went clickety-click as the ball rolled around and around would indeed make a wonderful toy! So, where are they? Aren't you proposing exciting new physics and then dismissing that as trivial? All the same, I wonder if Greg has considered surrounding his devices with some sheet iron? Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 13:28:26 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 13:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 16:23:46 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fw: Project IDA References: <9706091803.AA29862@mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"bK_Y01.0.R12.xS6dp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3759 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > > ---------- > ---------- > Hi Folks, > > My original message bounced, so here it is again. The correction on the > author's name (Colonel Corso) got through, making for an inexplicable > message. > > > >The International Defense Alliance (IDA) is using scalar field > > >transmitters to ward off invasion by extra-terrestials. > > >Although not particularly powerful these fields can readily penetrate > > >metals causing disruption of magnetic spin vectors, ie., magnetic > > >field properties and other such phenomena. Well, "...the higher the technology, the greater the chances are it will burn up on re-entery". (name of quoted individual withheld in the interests of planetary security of course.) ;-> > The irony of this joke is that there is a book soon to be published > called "The Day After Roswell" written by a Colonel Birce who was a > former > member of the National Security Council under Eisenhower. According to the > book, he was the head of an Army project to secretly funnel technology > derived from the Roswell crash into government and industry. This > technology, according to the mainstream newspaper article I read, included > "computer chips", lasers, and composite materials. They were doing this to > prepare our society for what they believed was an inevitable war with > "space aliens", as the article called them, in true National Enquirer > fashion. The book was discussed in the mainstream paper only becaus > Sen. Strom Thurmond wrote the preface, and then denied that he believed in > the > substance of the book. > There is a great deal of evidence that the thesis of the book is > entirely accurate. > > Fred The idea that modern technology sprang forth from something 'alien' is rather common. I've often heard that the transistor and integrated circuit are both the products of reverse engineered alien technology. Some people go so far as to claim that the F-117's and B-2's are based on alien technology too. (Yeah, flying saucers have ailerons too!) But it just ain't so folks. The first transistors were germainum point contact devices wich were developed directly from the existing germanium point contact diodes of the era. These were developed from the much older selenium based devices. Before those, we had natural gelena crystals (which often include naturally occuring transistors!). The integrated circuit sprang forth as a natural development of the now modern lithographic processes used to produce modern semiconductors. There is a clear technological trail for the development of these devices, and there was lots of trial and error as well as pages of theory documenting their development histories. So clearly it's only the really cool stuff we never get to see that was pieced back together after being dug out of some smoking hole! So the IDA is using scalar waves to block the alien invasion eh? Now I know what all those funny signals in my detectors are! (all kidding aside) Actually, I would be quite interested to hear what the thesis of this book actually is Fred. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 19:30:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 22:29:06 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: RMOD Mark I, drawing 2] References: <339C6F04.3993@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"IWuAk3.0.Xy2.rlBdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8128 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > HI All, > > Here is the second drawing in the RMOD introduction. > > I have included more info than in the first. > > Comments please. > Hi, Greg. It would seem that as ball A loads into the ramp, ball B *might* drop down with the pivot *if* the upward lift of the exit-end magnets let it go. If the downward drop of B dumps B into a circular magazine, How do you load a new ball into position A? Wil l the ramp tilt down on the right enough to load an A-ball into the entrance bucket? If so, it would seem there needs to be a third ball in transit in the ramp to do the lift of A into injection position. Maybe that's it? When B drops the pivot, A is in transit in the ramp. The pendulum action of the pivot would then need to swing down low enough so a new ball A could load from the magazine. Then, the old A ball reaches the ramp exit and drops - bringing the new ball A into injection position. It s eems that the phasing of the ball movements would be critical in this particular day dream. If anyone knows what I'm talking about - please explain it to me! Frank Stenger X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 19:46:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:38:24 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:32:18 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: Free Energy Subject: Re: Fw: Project IDA Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"VA-cc1.0.7A1.VuBdp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3764 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > book, he was the head of an Army project to secretly funnel technology > derived from the Roswell crash into government and industry. This > technology, according to the mainstream newspaper article I read, included > "computer chips", lasers, and composite materials. They were doing this to > prepare our society for what they believed was an inevitable war with > "space aliens", as the article called them, in true National Enquirer Anyone who is interested in persuing this thread (alien technology) further, should read "The Montauk Project" series of books by Peter Moon and Preston Nichols. These books, amongst other things, explores some of the history of the "surface barrier transistor", as alien inspired or invented tech. BTW, if anyone knows where I can get my hands on any of these little beauties, along with their spec sheets, *please* <----- said in a ple ading voice while on knees :) tell me! I would *gladly* part with one or two spare organs (at least one somewhat abused kidney ) to acquire some of these for my time machine! Regards, John X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 19:47:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:42:59 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:37:28 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: Free Energy Subject: Re: UFO Technology Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"vZ6FL.0.WM1.oyBdp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3765 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com There seems to be some fairly interesting "alien technology" "translated" in to human terms at http://www.sn.no/home/torealf , for anyone who may wish to peruse it. Hope it's of interest and/or use. John On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Fred Epps wrote: > > Hi Bob and all, > > Bob says, in reference to transistors and such being derived from alien > technology: > > There is a clear technological trail for the development of these > devices, and there was lots of trial and error as well as pages of > theory documenting their development histories. > > Well, to play devil's advocate, I would say > 1) The evidence that one and probably more than one ET spacecraft has > crashed on our planet and been retrieved is insurmountable. > I personally have talked to two individuals who had been in covert military > units who have seen ET bodies in labs. These include a police officer and a > Military Intelligence officer. This aspect of the affair is no longer a > secret, as far as I am concerned. > 2) Such technology in possession of the government(s) would have had an > influence on our tech development even if we didn't understand how it > worked. Just knowing that these things were possible would have created a > tremendous technical impetus. > 3) It's quite possible that certain lines of development could be fostered > by covert agencies, while still leaving normal paper trails . > After all, there was no necessity to pursue semiconductor development, when > vaccuum tubes still had plenty of areas of improvement. In fact, the > Russians might be considered a case in point for a technical culture that > did not get the "alien influence": they continued to develop vaccuum tubes, > and got the semiconductors from us. It's my impression that they are still > way ahead of us in tube technology. > > Actually, I would be quite interested to hear what the thesis of this > book actually is Fred > > I've looked at a couple of UFO sites with info about this book and, if > anything, the article appears to have understated the degree of influence > purported by the author. We'll have to see when the book comes out (by the > end of June, my bookstore says). > > I investigated the UFO phenomenon pretty thoroughly and have had a some > experiences myself, and I realized that it all came down to this: > 1) They're here, and they don't believe in the prime directive of Star > Trek, in fact their prime directive is to meddle as much as possible. > 2) Some people in government circles know of them and even communicate > with them face to face. > 3) None of it really matters because ultimately we are left to our own > devices--literally :-) I came to the conclusion that it was much more fun > and interesting to make our own "alien" technology than to wait for the > ruling bodies (and I don't necessarily mean our governments) to hand down > the received wisdom from on high-- literally :-) > > Fred > > > > > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 21:35:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 21:31:39 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:27:23 +0800 (SGT) X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg To: Vortex From: Mpower Subject: Hydrogen Beer Cc: caw@pacific.net.sg Resent-Message-ID: <"xpeig2.0.YN6.gYDdp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8132 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Subject: CHZ: flammable suds (move over, tamagochi) > >>TOKYO (AP) -- Here in the chic pubs of the Aoyama district, the latest fad >inspired by beer makers struggling through a sluggish economy is the flammable >suds of the new Hydrogen Beer. The latest craze among the environmentally >conscious crowd of twentysomethings, the "Suiso" beer made by the Asaka Beer >Corporation has been extremely popular at karaoke sing-along bars and >discotheques. > >>Hydrogen, like helium, is a gas lighter than air. Because hydrogen molecules >are lighter than air, sound waves are transmitted more rapidly; individuals >whose lungs are filled with the nontoxic gas can speak with an >uncharacteristically high voice. > >Exploiting this quirk of physics, chic urbanites can now sing soprano parts on >karaoke sing-along machines after consuming a big gulp of Suiso beer. > >The drink comes in a transparent hexagonal bottle imported from the maker of >the new American drink "Zima," according to Hideki Saito, marketing director >of Asaka Beer Corp. While the bottles are imported from Tennessee, the labels >are made with a 100% biodegradable polymer. The bottle caps are equipped with >a safety valve to prevent excess build-up of pressure in high temperatures. > >The flammable nature of hydrogen has also become another selling point, even >though Asaka has not acknowledged that this was a deliberate marketing ploy. >It has inspired a new fashion of blowing flames from one's mouth using a >cigarette as an ignition source. Many new karaoke videos feature singers >shooting blue flames in slow motion, while flame contests took place in pubs >everywhere in Tokyo on New Year's eve. > >So far, Asaka beer has insisted that the quantities of hydrogen used in the >drinks is too low to create potential for bodily harm. In the factory, the >carbon dioxide that is dissolved in the beer is partially extracted and >replaced with hydrogen gas. Mr. Saito maintained that the remaining carbon >dioxide mixed with hydrogen prevents the rate of combustion from increasing >dramatically. Carbon dioxide is a nonflammable gas that is naturally contained >in the exhaled breath of humans. > >However, the company has hesitated from marketing the product in the US due to >legal complications. > >Each bottle of Suiso beer sells for approximately 1,200 yen, or eleven US >dollars. The bottles are packed in special crates lined with concrete to >prevent chain explosions in the event of a fire. > ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 21:51:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 21:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 21:47:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: [Fwd: RMOD Mark I, drawing 2] Resent-Message-ID: <"FzKbe2.0.l91.MpDdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8133 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, What is the purpose for the Moveable Ball Support end supports? How does ball "B" exit with the end support blocking its downward path toward the left? Does it exit the Support in another direction? The ferris wheel model maybe would be more clearer, to see the whole motion process. Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 21:56:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 21:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 23:57:36 -0500 From: John Logajan Organization: Skypoint Communications, Inc. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: RMOD Mark I, drawing 2] References: <199706100447.VAA09569@iceland.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"numu8.0.SL1.IvDdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8134 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > What is the purpose for the Moveable Ball Support end supports? How does > ball "B" exit with the end support blocking its downward path toward the > left? Does it exit the Support in another direction? I think they must be fixed guides that stay attached to the upper portion. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 22:47:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:42:59 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:42:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: [Fwd: RMOD Mark I, drawing 2] Resent-Message-ID: <"koVcs2.0.Gb.YbEdp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8135 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 11:57 PM 6/9/97 -0500, John Logajan wrote: >Michael Randall wrote: >> What is the purpose for the Moveable Ball Support end supports? How does >> ball "B" exit with the end support blocking its downward path toward the >> left? Does it exit the Support in another direction? > >I think they must be fixed guides that stay attached to the upper portion. > Attached to the fixed ramp portion? And for what purpose? Still confused. Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 17:30:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 17:22:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:06:25 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: SMOT thoughts Resent-Message-ID: <"pqOFw1.0.Ik2.u-Udp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8161 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com SMOT thoughts: The ball 'falls' down an energy well to the more magnetized state in the narrow end of the magnet arrays, and in doing so becomes slightly magnetized itself. A partially (presumable somewhat randomly with several small N-S zones) magnetized ball will expe rience less net attraction going up the rails - or more importantly - *down the backside* or drop. There's an energy difference here. Stronger pull up the front of a ramp due to a 'fresher' ball, but weaker back pull as it leaves due to the slight magneti sm. This idea has to fit hysteresis curves and probably the ball's spin too. Anyway, to return to a higher energy state the ball needs to throw away that residual magnetism. The ball gets an opportunity to do that during the periods it's in a much lower s trength field, thereby regaining some of its magnetic potential (a more demagnetized state). Now alternating current is used to re-randomize ferromagnetic domains, IOW demagnetize soft steel/iron. One possibility - the stray EM fields in the environment might be helping to demagnetize the ball, thus sopping up some of the magnetic entropy it has gathered during its run through the SMOT. Again, EM shielding might help reveal this as others have mentioned. But would the usual Faraday cage be enough here? If the balls like to quickly and naturally give up residual magnetism anyway by relaxing or 'annealing' for a moment right there at room temperature - no EM needed - , then you'd really need to enclose the net magnetic energy of the system - as well as the thermal energy - in a solid ferrous box. It would be working a bit like Horaces thermal drift thing, in a way. THE POINT OF THIS: you'd probably need a well insulated solid steel box within which to do your calorimetry to try to 'kill' a working closed-loop SMOT in order to reveal and measure its secret. And if that's how it works, it's an apparent 2nd law violati on anyway, and we're still having fun. Let's see; free energy, and free air-conditioning as a "waste" product? I like it. Yes yes, we have to build them first...ahem. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 22:58:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:55:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Re: get real folks..Pecking Order Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:56:16 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"l7BrI2.0.wL3.jnEdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3767 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com ---------- Tim Vaughan says: > Hot fusion people peck on cold fusion people. > Cold fusion people peck on magnet motor people. > > I guess I am at the bottom of the pecking order ! > At least I am among friends. > > Someday SMOT based technology will rule !!! Wait ,Tim, you forgot the solid-state EM people, we're so low on the pecking order that everybody forgot to peck :-) (and, I might add, that we are enjoying our obscurity in this regard) Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 23:18:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 23:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 23:03:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@blue.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex- l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: [Fwd: RMOD Mark I, drawing 2] Resent-Message-ID: <"vN4IO.0.yX3.KvEdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8140 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > What is the purpose for the Moveable Ball Support end supports? How does > ball "B" exit with the end support blocking its downward path toward the > left? Does it exit the Support in another direction? Yeah, the latest drawing is a little more clear in some respects but those end pieces pose a problem? As it's drawn, looks like ball A gets sucked into the ramp, B drops. Ball support rising on the right possibly gives A a push into the ramp (depending on relative timing bewteen A's travel and B's drop). Then A travels up the ramp, drops off the end. Beca use ball B is restrained from rolling away in this drawing by the end piece, ball A lands on it and either bounces away or if not too energetic, sticks to it (because A's still a bit in the ramp's mag field). That's a bit messy at the end. It surely can't be intended that ball B goes nowhere? Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 06:08:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 05:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: 10 Jun 97 08:53:36 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"BpVDH2.0.qs4.8xKdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8144 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Frederick, > Delving into magnetic cooling effects (of which I know less than > nothing about) suggests energy exchange with magnetic fields, it > may be possible that EM fields are replenishing the magnets and > the ball. Well ... maybe. I do get the vague impression that the effect is temperature-sensitive, but I've not really looked at that. Since I know of no mechanism whereby "useful" energy can be coming into the device, then the only "normal" energy mechanism to explain rollaway is the initial magnetic PE. The argument, which I certainly have some sympathy with, is that the ball's up-and -down motion is in fact a very gentle continous slope, with the two forces (gravity and magnetic attraction) combining to make the ramps behave like that; and the final exit of the ball to an apparently higher potential (and kinetic) energy is an illusion . The argument against is based on the high losses which are very apparent to anyone playing with the thing. The only way to settle the two is to close the loop and see if it keeps running. By the way, if it succeeds in doing that, I bet it will stop after a few circuits, if only because it is very difficult to keep the tracks and ball clean and rolling smoothly. I would expect that a better device could be made with brass channel, or (bett er) two sheets of brass shaped into the ramp profiles. It is certainly disappointing that no-one but Greg has yet succeeded in closing the loop (or reporting that they have). But there is a very wide parameter space, and I don't know how many people are trying seriously. I look forward to Greg's sending out his kits. By the way, you said earlier: I'll believe in minute fluctuations of the geomagnetic field from "gurgles" in the bowels of the Earth causing magnetic changes on the ball surface, however slight, before I buy into perpetual motion or ZPE. But, I certainly prefer the latter. :-) The rule is that you are supposed to believe only in what the facts force you to believe. I see no essential need to believe in gurgles, so I won't believe in them. As yet, I don't "believe" the SMOT closes the loop. Even so, I'd certainly believe it i f and when I do. Then would come a search for explanations - including gurgles, if such can be proven to exist... > This would make the iron shielding test, the order of the day. That, among quite a few other tests! Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 06:06:53 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:03:43 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: BHT flux converter simulations Cc: newman-l@emachine.com X-Attachments: C:\BHT2.GIF; Resent-Message-ID: <"W2J7h3.0.QC5.b0Ldp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3768 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, this is a first try to simulate our BHT (Bauer, Hartmann, Tiede) magnetic flux generator via QuickField 3.4 . It shows the magnetic circle being interrupted by the 2 moving iron rods. There are still missing the coils on the output rod, but this will be the next step in simulation. Still have to learn how to use QF 3.4. Anyway. All the pictures of our flux switch converter are located at: http://www.overunity.de/bht Measurement report coming soon.. Stay tuned. Best regards, Stefan. Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\BHT2.GIF -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 06:10:11 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:04:50 +0100 From: Geoff Greaves Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk Organization: Computer Cafes Limited To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Neutral Zones, Gary, SMOT, Coler Resent-Message-ID: <"tVA3-3.0.0b5.s5Ldp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3769 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Yesterday I sent a message which seems to have failed; you know the sort, the type you didn't save a copy of. As it had commonalities with Tim Vaughan's posting I'll try and remember what I said. Sorry if I'm the only one who didn't get the first posting. ----- I have been thinking about Gary Wesley's neutral zone and Greg Watson's neutral zone which I had thought were quite different things but now I'm not so sure. A couple of thoughts from my ponderings are: Sweet's VTA - Perhaps a current would be produced in a flat output coil between, and parallel to, attracting magnets when moved either side of the neutral point of balance. If this neutral point of balance was shifted by an electromagnet in the form of an input coil the device becomes solid state. I don't see how such an input coil would be at right angles to the output coil which is one descriptive point of the VTA :-( It would explain why the device would latch onto the frequency of local magnetic waves :-) Greg's SMOT - If there is a change in magnetic flux in a ferrous substance as a result of a small movement through the neutral zone perhaps the SMOT's ball gains momentum by tacking either side of the centre line as it rolls up the ramp by the more obviou s means of traditional magnetic attraction. This means that a mechanically perfect ramp would not work having eliminated lateral movement of the ball and achieved perfect balance in the magnetic field. ----- I think that's pretty much what I wrote before. Tim mentions Hans Coler's device which is something else that I feel could fit into the neutral line school of explanation but haven't had the chance to go back to since pursuing this line of thought. Documentation on Gary's neutral line mentions a shielding effect; did you confirm this aspect as well as/or polarity reversal, Tim? Cheers, geoff greaves X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 07:01:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 21:54:02 +0800 (SGT) X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mpower Subject: Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"TPtGU1.0.ce.3tLdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8149 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Frederick J. Sparber posted the following (edited for brevity) at 11:45 1997.06.10 +0000: >At 05:41 AM 6/10/97 +0000, Chris wrote: >>Frederick, >> >Delving into magnetic cooling effects ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ok. what's that got to do with SMOT ? How would it apply ? MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 (-latest update: 1997.06.10.12:30-) * **************************************************************************** ********************* X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 07:36:40 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:29:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "SAM GORDON" To: Subject: Re: get real folks..Pecking Order Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 10:27:50 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"rX59c2.0.c_1.4JMdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3771 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com But if peck comes to peck, and all that are pecked pecks back and the peckers become the peckies. Then who is actually building something? ---------- > From: Fred Epps > To: Free Energy > Subject: Re: get real folks..Pecking Order > Date: Tuesday, June 10, 1997 1:56 AM > > > > ---------- > Tim Vaughan says: > > Hot fusion people peck on cold fusion people. > > Cold fusion people peck on magnet motor people. > > > > I guess I am at the bottom of the pecking order ! > > At least I am among friends. > > > > Someday SMOT based technology will rule !!! > > Wait ,Tim, you forgot the solid-state EM people, we're so low on the > pecking order that everybody forgot to peck :-) > (and, I might add, that we are enjoying our obscurity in this regard) > > Fred > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 14:41:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:27:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:34:43 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"tzYkc2.0.G23.cQSdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8157 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 01:54 PM 6/10/97 +0000, mpowers wrote: >Frederick J. Sparber posted the following (edited for brevity) at 11:45 >1997.06.10 +0000: >>At 05:41 AM 6/10/97 +0000, Chris wrote: >>>Frederick, >>> >>Delving into magnetic cooling effects > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >ok. what's that got to do with SMOT ? >How would it apply ? Well it goes like this...... (edited for brevity) :-) Regards, Frederick >MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM >* http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 (-latest update: >1997.06.10.12:30-) * >**************************************************************************** >********************* > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 09:49:34 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:46:59 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:40:56 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Energy sources and the smot Resent-Message-ID: <"aGtN1.0.lT3.1KOdp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3773 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com The different sources of energy that some people have claimed to be causing the smot to function, ( home power lines, different energy fields in and around the earth, RF radiation, ect, ect, ) are a reality. I don't think these have any thing to do with t he smot operation. I believe that, if they did, every electronic device used in todays world would be made unstable to the point of being useless. I do believe that a test where the smot is shielded needs to be done as soon as possible to put everyone's m ind at rest. The fields can influence the operation of different devices I'm sure, but I don't believe they are the cause of the smot operation. Butch LaFonte X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 07:31:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 10:24:09 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutral Zones, Gary, SMOT, Coler References: <97Jun10.140232bst.74884@gatehouse.powys.gov.uk> Resent-Message-ID: <"9x9D7.0.Qw1.pHMdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3770 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Geoff Greaves wrote: > Sweet's VTA - Perhaps a current would be produced in a flat output coil > between, and parallel to, attracting magnets when moved either side of > the neutral point of balance. If this neutral point of balance was > shifted by an electromagnet in the form of an input coil the device > becomes solid state. I don't see how such an input coil would be at > right angles to the output coil which is one descriptive point of the > VTA :-( It would explain why the device would latch onto the frequency > of local magnetic waves :-) I kinda hate to mention this, but.... If you watch the video tape of Sweets VTA, you will notice that the input to the VTA is being generated by an older Hewlett Packard sine wave oscillator based on vacuum tubes. I beleive (from memory here) that it is specifically a model 604. Some years ago, the same exact model HP sine wave oscillator was tested, it was found that the oscillator does not deliver any output signal for several seconds after the power switch is activated. If you watch the video tape, you will see that the oscillator is off for a long enough time for the tubes to be cool. Yet once Sweet flips the switch, power is flowing to his load, well before the oscillator has started. Mr. Sweets description of the "beam" being emitted from the quartz halogen bulb is a clear give-away at the technical skills being demonstrated. This includes Mr. Sweets 'technical discussion' of the field of a magnet being illustrated by holding up to a modified TV set. This demonstration tells us far more about magnetizing a shadow mask that is does tell us anything about the magnets field. With the collection of wires shown on the video, it is quite impossible to rule out the possibility that the current flowing through the loads was not due to a simple ground loop or other source tied to the oscillators power switch. I think the VTA should be filed right next to the MRA. Speculation on its theory of operation is pointless. The VTA remains unproven. Sweet had three mutually exclusive theories of operation, so clearly there was some degree of misinformation distributed. > I think that's pretty much what I wrote before. Tim mentions Hans > Coler's device which is something else that I feel could fit into the > neutral line school of explanation but haven't had the chance to go back > to since pursuing this line of thought. I don't see how Coler's device would use the 'neutral line' based on it's physical layout. This seems more closly related to the Barkhausen Effect battery, but with a positive feedback loop due to the current within the cores. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 13:15:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:10:35 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:16:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: get real folks..Berry Merryman to Resent-Message-ID: <"hMaFE3.0.Z35.vIRdp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8155 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 10 Jun 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Subject: Re: get real folks..Berry Merryman to > > Frank, > > > The SMOT will never work. The new technologies revolve around > > electron condensations. There are no condensations in the SMOT. > > Great. That means I can stop playing with it. Thanks for the help. > > Chris > Frank, Chris, Berry, (& others with 'tired fingers') WAIT tell you 'see-it' then you'll get Greg's 'Split-Brain syndrome!' :) I Lucked out and had my (very first) #1SMOT BALL 'Shoot off the ramp and across my table and to the floor (thud) Next to the startled (1/2 sleeping CAT and then another Chain-reaction:)' ... I'm still trying to replicate that one (I saw IT!)..Presently working on smot1,2,3 RMOD1 & 2 & ego enhansment systems in 'yike' spare-time!' (why *must* we sleep?) -------------------- It's there, "WHERE THERE'S SMOT there's FIRE..!!!" God, I'm Glad to be alive now! se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 13:37:38 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:34:51 -0700 (PDT) From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Neutral Zones, Gary, SMOT, Coler Date: 10 Jun 1997 20:41:16 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"1iH1U.0.4D1.cfRdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3774 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com bshannon wrote: >The VTA remains unproven. Sweet had three mutually exclusive theories >of operation, so clearly there was some degree of misinformation >distributed. Misinformation designed to confuse or resulting from confusion? I think there's a fair chance that Sweet stumbled upon something that he didn't understand and so couldn't replicate; a fair enough chance that it is prudent to use what information we have about his device when considering developing theories. >I don't see how Coler's device would use the 'neutral line' based on >it's physical layout. Are we talking Magnetstromapparat or Stromerzeuger here? Presumably the former as its physical layout is best documented? A quick glance at the diagram I have of it makes me think the opposite to you. Perhaps because I am considering the effect displayed by Gary's neutral line phenomenon, not just his physical examples. I think this requires more thought than either of us have had time to give it to come up with coherent argument one way or another :-) Tim D Vaughan wrote: >Although I dont, one could always argue that >the inventors had/have telekinetic abilities or ghosts or something. One >could also argue that there is some kind of trick, but I don't see what any >of these inventors would gain from this. Greg Watson, Han Coler, and >Wesley Gary all were very open about sharing there ideas and >demonstrating there devices in working form. Humble Pie has too nasty a taste for some people! Maybe Sweet was one of these. The MRA could still be a current device if its inventors had claimed a secret conditioning technique rather than having the bottle say they got it wrong. Hey, Fred, have you considered how wrapping a primary coil around Gary's horseshoe magnet to vary its strength and therefore the position of its neutral zone, rather than using his mechanical device for flapping his output coil up and down through the neu tral zone, gives it a similarity to a (parametric?) transformer? Cheers all, geoff (Anyone got some rolling stock for this N gauge track? Choo choo choo choo, choo choo choo choo...) ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 15:48:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:43:24 -0700 Date: 10 Jun 97 18:13:47 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: get real folks..Berry Merryman to Resent-Message-ID: <"Oi7oe1.0.9n.AYTdp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8158 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Steve, > Frank, Chris, Berry, (& others with 'tired fingers') WAIT tell you > 'see-it' then you'll get Greg's 'Split-Brain syndrome!' :) Yeah, I've seen it. And I think it IS weird. But I have to stick to the rules, and the rules (in this case) require a closed loop and taking nobody's word for anything. That is no reflection on Greg, just the way things are. You mustn't take literally what we Brits post. Even when we mean what we say, we reserve the option to claim afterwards that we didn't. Does the phrase "Perfidious Albion" mean nothing to you? Chris ("Smotters do it with clean balls.") X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 15:40:59 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:39:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Geoff Greaves" , "Free Energy" Subject: Re: Gary Motor Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:15:49 -0700 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"V34O03.0.K_5.XUTdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3776 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Geoff and others, Hey, Fred, have you considered how wrapping a primary coil around Gary's horseshoe magnet to vary its strength and therefore the position of its neutral zone, rather than using his mechanical device for flapping his output coil up and down through the neutral zone, gives it a similarity to a (parametric?) transformer? Tim kindly sent me the Gary motor material some time ago but I have to admit I haven't really looked at it. I will do so this week and let you know what I think. One thing I'm certain about right now, if you can demonstrate an effect with an electromech anical system, you can demonstrate the same effects with a solid-state system. Every mechanical system has an electrical analog and vice versa. BTW I have found another solid-state transformer that is supposedly overunity. It is called the "Unidirectional Transformer" invented by Paul Jensen and described in the 1994 International Symposium On New Energy proceedings. It's very interesting and re lates to discussions of bifilar coils, etc. on the list. I have to go to work now but I will report on this next week when I come back from my shift. Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 19:03:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:00:36 -0700 From: tekatcha@pop.ghbbs.com (Anthony Tekatch) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 97 18:50:00 -0400 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: something new Resent-Message-ID: <"5tpG3.0.d85.2RWdp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3777 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Also I have a collection of [old] Popular Science magazines. In the front >of one them is an ad for Edmund Scientific. One of the things they were >selling was a kit that consisted of six little 35mm film size containers >filled with compost that had a starter added to it, I believe that the >container was the anode and there was something that was inserted for the >cathode. These six little cells were supposed to produce 60 milli-amps at >six volts for over six months. I am assuming that the organic reaction >when composting takes place that produces heat must also produce >electricity. I realize that 60 milli-amps at six volts is not much but if >fifty five gallon drums were used instead of these tiny containers, It is >possible that a large amount of electricity could be had. As a bonus I >suppose one could grow their own food from the rich soil that would >remain. DOES ANYONE HAVE THE DETAILS OF HOW THIS IS OR WAS DONE?? >THANKS WES It works like a battery. You can make this out of anything with a little acidity to it. Just get a copper wire and a galvanized (zinc coated) wire (like one from a galvanized fence). Stick the wires into a potato or orange and you will get a voltage devel oped across the wires. If you put two of these cells in series then you can power an LCD watch. Anthony Tekatch tekatcha@pop.ghbbs.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 18:03:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 17:59:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: SMOT & Magnetocaloric Effects Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:58:16 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"O4bHC.0.Kb4._XVdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8163 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 12:21 AM 6/11/97 +0000, you wrote: >Frederick - > > > Are the *artifact* EM fields supplying > > a form of SMOT *heat engine*? > >See "SMOT thoughts" - I think we're on a very similar if not identical >track. But does it really need EM to work? A SMOT might just pump the heat >the "wrong way" between the strongly coercive PMs that naturally want to >spring back to a magnetized state, and the soft ferrous ball that naturally >wants to spring back to an unmagnetized state. Does this mean the magnets >warm up as they spring back after having some energy apparently 'stolen' by >the ball? Or do they cool as well as they return to their 'lower' energy >state? After thinking it over I (do-don't) :-) see any need for anything other than "ambient" heat for the most part. I think that as the PMs magnetize the ball they would like to drop in temperature, but are maintained by heat gain from their surroundings. The ball however, is gaining magnetic strength and rising in temperature until it goes into the lower magnetic field, where it might lose magnetism and cool faster if "rattled" by impact or EM "noise"? > >Further, if there's anything to this, the spin and speed of the ball >through the various parts of the ramps in relation to the hysteresis curve >probably plays a complex role. Some of the tricky adjustments required are >perhaps really bringing these factors into proper relationship to get the >best energy transfer. The track could be draining-cooling the ball also? :-) > >Test for this hypothesis...(?) Helluva sensitive Infrared heat sensor? > >Relative to ambient temperature, do this: > >Chill the ball (and warm the magnets?) - SMOT should "run rough". > >Warm the ball (and chill the magnets?) - SMOT should run well. > > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > Magnetocaloric Heat Engine? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 15:25:59 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:13:30 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutral Zones, Gary, SMOT, Coler References: <3278819229.36732916@compcafe.co.uk> Resent-Message-ID: <"47WTg3.0.DE5.WCTdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3775 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Geoff Greaves wrote: > > bshannon wrote: > >The VTA remains unproven. Sweet had three mutually exclusive theories > >of operation, so clearly there was some degree of misinformation > >distributed. > > Misinformation designed to confuse or resulting from confusion? As there were apparently three technical explainations for how the VTA was supposed to operate, I'll guess that both cases apply. (Option C, all of the above!) > I think there's a fair chance that Sweet stumbled upon something that he > didn't understand and so couldn't replicate; a fair enough chance that it is > prudent to use what information we have about his device when considering > developing theories. I must admit that it is possible, but unlikley in my opinion. People have played quite alot with coils and magnets. It seems we have a fairly good understanding of the limitations of such systems. >From the video tape, a ground loop is the most likley explaination I've heard. > Humble Pie has too nasty a taste for some people! Maybe Sweet was one of > these. The MRA could still be a current device if its inventors had claimed a > secret conditioning technique rather than having the bottle say they got it > wrong. Question, do you really mean MRA, not VTA? Joel McClain knew fully well that the MRA was not over unity BEFORE he openly released the plans on Keelynet. Sweet did claim a secret conditioning process, so I tend to think you are in fact talking about the MRA. Is this correct? If so, what is the story about "...having the bottle say they got it wrong."? I don't quite understand this statement. Joel had the details of the AC power factors and duty cycles explained in detail before the announcement of the MRA. At that time, he claimed and appeared to fully understand exactly what this ment for the MRA's over unity claims, and withdrew the first version of the MRA plans from distribution over Keelynet. I'm not at all sure what happened later though. Can some one clue me in here? X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 19:34:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 05:43:18 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"SR7YO2.0.Qu1.7uWdp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8165 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, Thanks for Michael J. Schaffer energy diagram. I understand that Schaffer diagram is follows actual the ball path not the longitudinal - center axis of the magnets.This can be seen from the early return flux of the magnets below before the magnets longit udinal ends. The below is other issue and may not be related to above. I made lot of rampless SMOT experiments two days ago and get null results. My experiment setup was like this: L-\o MMMMMMMMMM \_______________________________________________________________|-L A B P The Roll down ramp(A) is 10 degree inclineded and Ball is started with 1 cm potential energy. Track B is 1 meter long and slightly inclined up to restore the 10 mm drop from the start. (L-)'s shows the same level 25 mm diameter ball is used. track inner s pacing is 12 mm. When no magnets are present, released ball from ramp A roll until the point p and return. Track-ball frictions are minimized so the ball keep rolled and swing about a minute until full stop at bottom of A. When magnets are inserted in various configurations( classical, chevron arrangements and its variations, single top magnet arrays) the ball does not roll never beyond point p. On well balanced arrangements and within smooth acceleration deceleration schem es (which ensure ball rolling without sliding) equalize the point p. Result: Rampless configurations are not suitable for observing OU effects. Possible causes for this results: - Linear kinetic energy is not enough to trigger the effect. - Linear kinetic energy is still symmetric and not able to trigger the effect.(according my symmetry breaking idea) - Sliding conditions (with using strong magnets and big potential walls) are too lossy to observe the effect. - Non lateral crossing of the magnetic field is required for the effect. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 19:28:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:26:18 -0700 From: "Wes Crosiar" To: Subject: Re: something new Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:43:46 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"aRULv3.0.Kw3.8pWdp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3778 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com : Tuesday, June 10, 1997 3:50 PM > > >Also I have a collection of [old] Popular Science magazines. In the front > >of one them is an ad for Edmund Scientific. One of the things they were > >selling was a kit that consisted of six little 35mm film size containers > >filled with compost that had a starter added to it, I believe that the > >container was the anode and there was something that was inserted for the > >cathode. These six little cells were supposed to produce 60 milli-amps at > >six volts for over six months. I am assuming that the organic reaction > >when composting takes place that produces heat must also produce > >electricity. I realize that 60 milli-amps at six volts is not much but if > >fifty five gallon drums were used instead of these tiny containers, It is > >possible that a large amount of electricity could be had. As a bonus I > >suppose one could grow their own food from the rich soil that would > >remain. DOES ANYONE HAVE THE DETAILS OF HOW THIS IS OR WAS DONE?? > >THANKS WES > > It works like a battery. You can make this out of anything with a little > acidity to it. Just get a copper wire and a galvanized (zinc coated) wire > (like one from a galvanized fence). Stick the wires into a potato or > orange and you will get a voltage developed across the wires. If you put > two of these cells in series then you can power an LCD watch. > > > Anthony: The picture shows six little containers about the size of 35mm film containers power a small solar type motor. It claimed that it would produce this power for over six months. wes X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 06:44:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 06:40:18 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 05:38:41 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SMOT & Magnetocaloric Effects Resent-Message-ID: <"vDqPK3.0.H_7.1hgdp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8172 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 4:23 AM 6/11/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >Rick: > >You might consider a demagnetization "tunnel" for the ball to go through > to "close the loop". > [snip] > >Regards, Frederick Some very interesting ideas floating about vortex now! FEEL THE SYNERGY! The demagnetization tunnel might be achieved by alternating magnetic field directions at the beginning of the ramp. It is especially interesting that the Hartman patent shows the magnets in a staggered array at the beginning of the ramp and jammed togeth er at the end of the ramp kind of like so: m m m m m mmmmmMMM \/\/\/\/\ ... |||||||| m m m m m mmmmmMMM m - small magnet M - larger longer magnet on angle | or /\ - flux direction The oscillating field direction at the beginning of the ramp may serve to demagnetize the ball at the beginning of the ramp, in addition to diluting the field strength there. The rotational inertia of the ball may help to stabilize it during the demageti zation phase. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 08:08:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:03:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:30:22 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Mark II Progress Resent-Message-ID: <"cLGKw.0.s73.Hvhdp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3780 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have made some good headway with the SMOT Mark II design. The design is much more stable and less subject to lunar phase variation and the experimenters desire for the thing to work/not work. I can get a climb and drop of 14-15mm on a 12mm ball WITHOUT requiring ANY magnet positional adjustments. Just put the magnet arrays into their designated places on the ramps and it works. I can get good linking by varying the inter-ramp link distance. NO magnet adjustments are necessary. I can get level rollaway with just TWO linked ramps. I am currently experimenting with 2 sets of 2 linked SMOT Mark II ramps joined by 100mm radius N gauge track (180 deg turn) and 50mm feeders. ->- / \ / \ | | --- --- | | | | --- --- | | | | --- --- | | \ / \ / -<- Not working yet! The curves are very lossy and I am working with level rollaway ramps. I plan to post construction plans and photos to my web page in the next few days. If these plans allow others to achieve level rollaway, then we will have something to build on. By the way, the magnet arrays are a combination of Terry Blanton's and my designs. The SMOT ramp kits will be the Mark II variety. Will keep you posted. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 20:15:14 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:13:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Hinman, Jeffrey M" To: "'freenrg-L@eskimo.com'" Subject: 180 degree turn Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:12:42 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"Qtj0W.0.PP6.8bsdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3785 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Some SMOT improvements: I have been subscribing to the list and watching the design of the SMOT ramps. I have played with magnets for many years and have always wondered about overunity possibility. I think what you are doing is fascinating. I have suggestions for the 180 degree curves. Since most of the friction is due to difference in curve radius lengths, has a monorail approach been considered? Use only ONE rail and place magnets above the ball throughout the turn to keep it centered o n the rail. This should reduce both rolling friction and sliding friction due to radius difference. The ball could initially drop onto the standard n-gauge two rail track (or u-channel) with a monorail in the center (lower than the two rail track). The outer two rails could descend faster than the monorail so the ball eventually rides only on the monorail and begins the 180 degree turn. This could be reversed upon exit of the curve and entry of another SMOT ramp. By using the two rail to one rail app roach, the ball attraction magnets used for the curve could be kept separate from the SMOT ramps to minimize affect on the SMOT magnetic field. I think the challenges of the monorail curve design are making a super flat surface with a sight decline throu ghout the curve, setting up the magnets above the ball that are rigid and do not vary in field intensity, and allowing fine adjustments (especially at exit of the curve) to allow the ball to escape the field with enough momentum to reach the next SMOT ram p. What I don't know is if the attractive magnetic field causes momentum loss because of the rolling ball interacting with the field. A variance on this might be the monorail above with the magnets. The ball would be attracted up (a small distance) and then contact the rail because of the magnets on the other side of the rail. This might be even more efficient, but maybe more difficul t to procure. It might be noted that the metal rail (or monorail) might need to be a non-ferrous material to keep the ball and rail from being attracted to each other while in the magnetic field thereby increasing rolling resistance. Generally the harder the material, the less contact/rolling resistance. This also might be something to consider for the SMOT ramps themselves. Keep up the work! Thanks. Jeff Hinman Seattle, WA X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 14:38:42 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:36:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Bmd2323@aol.com Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:34:57 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: OU water heater Resent-Message-ID: <"MEZq81.0.MK.Qfndp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3781 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Howdy! Did anyone happen to catch the Good Morning America program this morning (6/11/97)? According to Art Bell, they were supposed to be profiling a company that has prototype overunity hot water heater. I missed it due to my odd work schedule, but I thought one you might have caught it. Bmd2323@aol.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 16:17:54 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:15:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: rmuha@mail Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:14:21 -0400 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: ralph muha Subject: Re: OU water heater Resent-Message-ID: <"SPtG-1.0.7G4.E6pdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3782 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Did anyone happen to catch the Good Morning America program this morning >(6/11/97)? According to Art Bell, they were supposed to be profiling a >company that has prototype overunity hot water heater. the company is Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. their web site is http://biz.onramp.net/~ceti/ they have numerous patents... besides the hot water heater, they demonstrated a process for neutralizing radioactivity. the story included an interview with a gentleman from the Hanford Nuclear Facility (ie, waste dump) in Oregon, who said they would be evaluating the process to dete rmine its potential for neutralizing their radwaste... r X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 17:26:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:21:52 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:21:27 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI demo References: <199706111743.KAA26386@popmail.UCSD.EDU> Resent-Message-ID: <"TzdWk1.0.A06.V4qdp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8180 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Bart Simon wrote: > > p.s. I saw the ABC report - that geiger counter demonstration seemed > pretty convincing, am I missing something? > Yes. How do you know the radiactive elements were not simply plating out ont the cathode, hence being removed from the region the counter was monitoring, for one.... By the way: there have been many (I know of at least 4) groups that have been in contact with DOE/NRC/ETC in the past decade, claiming to be able to remediate radioactivity. None of these has led to any significant development, however. So, such claims ar e certainly familiar to DOE. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 18:02:25 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:54:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Cc: crosiar@goldrush.com, tekatch@pop.ghbbs.com Subject: free energy from compost Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"0ZVS33.0.oI1.qdqdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3783 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Has anyone got actual experience with useful amounts of electricty from a compost pile? I would be interested to try if indications are that I could get say 2.5 kwh over a 24 hour period (50% of average electrical requirement for our home/office). I would be grateful for comments. _________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office ________________________________________________________ _ On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Anthony Tekatch wrote: > > >Also I have a collection of [old] Popular Science magazines. In the front > >of one them is an ad for Edmund Scientific. One of the things they were > >selling was a kit that consisted of six little 35mm film size containers > >filled with compost that had a starter added to it, I believe that the > >container was the anode and there was something that was inserted for the > >cathode. These six little cells were supposed to produce 60 milli-amps at > >six volts for over six months. I am assuming that the organic reaction > >when composting takes place that produces heat must also produce > >electricity. I realize that 60 milli-amps at six volts is not much but if > >fifty five gallon drums were used instead of these tiny containers, It is > >possible that a large amount of electricity could be had. As a bonus I > >suppose one could grow their own food from the rich soil that would > >remain. DOES ANYONE HAVE THE DETAILS OF HOW THIS IS OR WAS DONE?? > >THANKS WES > > It works like a battery. You can make this out of anything with a little > acidity to it. Just get a copper wire and a galvanized (zinc coated) wire > (like one from a galvanized fence). Stick the wires into a potato or > orange and you will get a voltage developed across the wires. If you put > two of these cells in series then you can power an LCD watch. > > > Anthony Tekatch > > tekatcha@pop.ghbbs.com > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 12:26:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:20:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:17:51 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"IQaha3.0.-p6.Zl4ep"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8210 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Epitaxy: > Also the EM energy would need to be rectified in > some way in order to provide a net force vector in > one direction. I do not see any such rectification > mechanism in SMOT. Maybe rectification isn't needed if the RF energy is coming into play by helping to re-randomize domains. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 19:39:34 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:36:40 -0700 From: tekatcha@pop.ghbbs.com (Anthony Tekatch) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 22:21:56 -0400 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: something new Resent-Message-ID: <"4S1N1.0.1X5.t2sdp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3784 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >> It works like a battery. You can make this out of anything with a little >> acidity to it. Just get a copper wire and a galvanized (zinc coated) wire >> (like one from a galvanized fence). Stick the wires into a potato or >> orange and you will get a voltage developed across the wires. If you put >> two of these cells in series then you can power an LCD watch. >> > Anthony: The picture shows six little containers about the size of 35mm >film containers power a small solar type motor. It claimed that it would >produce this power for over six months. >wes Wow, that seems like a long time. I was able to power an LCD watch for about two months with a potatoe ... the potatoe dried up. I'm sure that if you kept the fruit/vegetable/compost hydrated that you could extend the life of the battery. Do you have questions about how to connect the containers? If so then I can easily draw wiring diagram for you. Anthony Tekatch tekatcha@pop.ghbbs.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 21:35:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:33:53 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:32:28 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: pendulum Resent-Message-ID: <"5Xr9r1.0.Th2.lmtdp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3786 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, If a steel ball was attached at the bottom of a flexible line that was in a V shape, to keep the ball centered, and the ball were to swing through the magnet array, and just as it got in the "blue hole" area, the line hit a cross bar that made it' s swing radius so short that the steel ball would travel in a near vertical direction out through the "blue hole", do you think overunity would come into play. I know it has to travel back through the array on it's back swing, but it seems to me it would have picked up additional energy on the forward pass. What do you think? Butch LaFonte X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 21:56:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:53:46 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:51:16 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Cc: crosiar@goldrush.com, tekatch@pop.ghbbs.com Subject: Re: free energy from compost Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"2jOEg3.0.BY4.P3udp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3787 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi! I haven't personally done work with this, but I have, somewhere, a report by a gentleman somewhere in the Atlantic provinces that has managed to get somewhat useable power from rotting rice husks. He has produced an average 1.5 v from a "battery" abou t the size of D cells for aprox. 2 weeks or ao. I can't remember the specific bacteria involved, but it seemed to be a common one. So, it does seem possible to get electricity this way. I'd reccomend putting a few "batteries" together, using disparate met als such as copper and aluminum, dump in your compost material, and give it a go. john On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Jorg Ostrowski wrote: > > > Has anyone got actual experience with useful amounts of electricty from a > compost pile? I would be interested to try if indications are that I could > get say 2.5 kwh over a 24 hour period (50% of average electrical > requirement for our home/office). I would be grateful for comments. > _________________________________________________________ > Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect > - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office > _________________________________________________________ > > On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Anthony Tekatch wrote: > > > > >Also I have a collection of [old] Popular Science magazines. In the front > > >of one them is an ad for Edmund Scientific. One of the things they were > > >selling was a kit that consisted of six little 35mm film size containers > > >filled with compost that had a starter added to it, I believe that the > > >container was the anode and there was something that was inserted for the > > >cathode. These six little cells were supposed to produce 60 milli-amps at > > >six volts for over six months. I am assuming that the organic reaction > > >when composting takes place that produces heat must also produce > > >electricity. I realize that 60 milli-amps at six volts is not much but if > > >fifty five gallon drums were used instead of these tiny containers, It is > > >possible that a large amount of electricity could be had. As a bonus I > > >suppose one could grow their own food from the rich soil that would > > >remain. DOES ANYONE HAVE THE DETAILS OF HOW THIS IS OR WAS DONE?? > > >THANKS WES > > > > It works like a battery. You can make this out of anything with a little > > acidity to it. Just get a copper wire and a galvanized (zinc coated) wire > > (like one from a galvanized fence). Stick the wires into a potato or > > orange and you will get a voltage developed across the wires. If you put > > two of these cells in series then you can power an LCD watch. > > > > > > Anthony Tekatch > > > > tekatcha@pop.ghbbs.com > > > > > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 23:28:33 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:25:57 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:20:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: Re: SMOT Mark II Progress Resent-Message-ID: <"Uh13r2.0.1W7.qPvdp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3788 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg wrote: >Hi All, > >I have made some good headway with the SMOT Mark II design. snip >I am currently experimenting with 2 sets of 2 linked SMOT Mark II ramps >joined by 100mm radius N gauge track (180 deg turn) and 50mm feeders. > > ->- > / \ > / \ > | | > --- --- > | | | | > --- --- > | | | | > --- --- > | | > \ / > \ / > -<- > >Not working yet! The curves are very lossy and I am working with level >rollaway ramps. > snip >-- >Best Regards, > Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ > > Excellent News! A couple of thoughts: if the poles were arranged like -> - / \ / \ | | s---n n---s s| |n n| |s s---n n---s s| |n n| |s s---n n---s | | \ / \ / - <- then the ramps might not interfere with each other as much It seems that the 180 turn losses would be a lot less with a very narrow track spacing ( less should be needed without the magnets next to it ) Maybe three ramps would work, 120 degrees per corner. I know a man of your SMOT caliber probably already thought of these things but I thought they were worth mentioning anyway. Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /***********************************************************/ /* Anything said by me on this list that I have originated */ /* is in the public domain. PS There's no money in energy. */ /* - At least not after everybody owns an energy device! - */ /****** *****************************************************/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 00:27:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:25:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:31:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: "Hinman, Jeffrey M" cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: 180 degree turn Resent-Message-ID: <"JBke2.0.sQ1.oHwdp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8188 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Hinman, Jeffrey M wrote: > Some SMOT improvements: > > I have been subscribing to the list and watching the design of the SMOT > ramps. > > I have played with magnets for many years and have always wondered about > overunity possibility. I think what you are doing is fascinating. > > I have suggestions for the 180 degree curves. Since most of the > friction is due to difference in curve radius lengths, has a monorail > approach been considered? Use only ONE rail and place magnets above > the ball throughout the turn to keep it centered on the rail. This > should reduce both rolling friction and sliding friction due to radius > difference. The ball could initially drop onto the standard n-gauge two > rail track (or u-channel) with a monorail in the center (lower than the > two rail track). The outer two rails could descend faster than the > monorail so the ball eventually rides only on the monorail and begins > the 180 degree turn. This could be reversed upon exit of the curve and > entry of another SMOT ramp. By using the two rail to one rail approach, > the ball attraction magnets used for the curve could be kept separate > from the SMOT ramps to minimize affect on the SMOT magnetic field. I > think the challenges of the monorail curve design are making a super > flat surface with a sight decline throughout the curve, setting up the > magnets above the ball that are rigid and do not vary in field > intensity, and allowing fine adjustments (especially at exit of the > curve) to allow the ball to escape the field with enough momentum to > reach the next SMOT ramp. > ********************************************************** > What I don't know is if the attractive magnetic field causes momentum > loss because of the rolling ball interacting with the field. > ********************************************************** -- Jeffery, I love 'reverse thinking - "If you can't take Mohammad to the Mountain, bring the Mountain to Mohammed!", But I have to admit you have got me on this 'monorail' idea.... THE RAMP (magnets DO ACCELERATE the volocity of the steel ball (when in its field -- zoom -- & out (hopefully) and the 'drop' off of few millimeters...ADDS to it's forward momentum (V)), I'm feeling like an unskilled (n-guage train builder here - tiny tracks (2) balancing steel balls..)) your " ONE " or monorail idea has given me much thought, but would your 'ball' float 180 degree turn only via magnets (left/right) balance?..' MAGNETS 'Above' (how so??)?? > A variance on this might be the monorail above with the magnets. The > ball would be attracted up (a small distance) and then contact the rail > because of the magnets on the other side of the rail. This might be > even more efficient, but maybe more difficult to procure. > ** maybe a .gif here?? ** sounds sound? > It might be noted that the metal rail (or monorail) might need to be a > non-ferrous material to keep the ball and rail from being attracted to > each other while in the magnetic field thereby increasing rolling > resistance. Generally the harder the material, the less contact/rolling > resistance. This also might be something to consider for the SMOT ramps > themselves. > > Keep up the work! > > Thanks. > > Jeff Hinman > Seattle, WA > > the above 'balance' monorail thought was from working with 'smot1' & n -guage train rail.. gravity on TWO (2) rails is tricky enough to balance, but maybe I missed your point. ?? Are you saying, "this is LESS friction with a single (bottom sphere) track, then on 'two sided contact?' If so, Which "makes sense to me too", I think you should try to even get the 'single-SMOT'(double-rail) even linked together to see the troubles! So meone mentioned a TUBE!! a plumbing tube (P-Joint) Are you cutting Friction in 1/2?? GREAT!! se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 12:19:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:09:07 -0700 From: "Hinman, Jeffrey M" To: "'ekwall2@diac.com'" , "'freenrg-L@eskimo.com'" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:36:29 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"e9dJ.0.pL6.1j3ep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3791 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > >> -- >> Jeffery, I love 'reverse thinking - "If you can't take Mohammad to the >> Mountain, bring the Mountain to Mohammed!", But I have to admit you have >> got me on this 'monorail' idea.... THE RAMP (magnets DO ACCELERATE the >> volocity of the steel ball (when in its field -- zoom -- & out (hopefully) >> and the 'drop' off of few millimeters...ADDS to it's forward momentum >> (V)), I'm feeling like an unskilled (n-guage train builder here - tiny >> tracks (2) balancing steel balls..)) your " ONE " or monorail idea has >> given me much thought, but would your 'ball' float 180 degree turn only >> via magnets (left/right) balance?..' MAGNETS 'Above' (how so??)?? >> >> ** maybe a .gif here?? ** sounds sound? >> >> the above 'balance' monorail thought was from working with 'smot1' & n >> -guage train rail.. gravity on TWO (2) rails is tricky enough to balance, >> but maybe I missed your point. ?? >> Are you saying, "this is LESS friction with a single (bottom sphere) >> track, then on 'two sided contact?' If so, Which "makes sense to me too", >> I think you should try to even get the 'single-SMOT'(double-rail) even >> linked together to see the troubles! Someone mentioned a TUBE!! a >> plumbing tube (P-Joint) Are you cutting Friction in 1/2?? GREAT!! >> >> se >> ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ >> -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 >> ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 >> ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX > Hi Steve. The monorail idea for the curve is ONLY for the 180 degree turn. This is not intended for the SMOT, only after the ball drops onto the n-gauge track and then converts to the monorail curve. Here is a .gif picture of the curved monorail idea: Hope that makes sense. Jeff Hinman > Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\SMOT-CUR.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 22:15:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:10:54 -0700 From: "Hinman, Jeffrey M" To: "'ekwall2@diac.com'" , "'freenrg-L@eskimo.com'" Subject: 180 degree turn Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:50:52 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"HIAep3.0.wu4.TPDep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3796 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sorry for the repost - I had a problem with my mailer. Jeff >> -- >> Jeffery, I love 'reverse thinking - "If you can't take Mohammad to the >> Mountain, bring the Mountain to Mohammed!", But I have to admit you have >> got me on this 'monorail' idea.... THE RAMP (magnets DO ACCELERATE the >> volocity of the steel ball (when in its field -- zoom -- & out (hopefully) >> and the 'drop' off of few millimeters...ADDS to it's forward momentum >> (V)), I'm feeling like an unskilled (n-guage train builder here - tiny >> tracks (2) balancing steel balls..)) your " ONE " or monorail idea has >> given me much thought, but would your 'ball' float 180 degree turn only >> via magnets (left/right) balance?..' MAGNETS 'Above' (how so??)?? >> >> ** maybe a .gif here?? ** sounds sound? >> >> the above 'balance' monorail thought was from working with 'smot1' & n >> -guage train rail.. gravity on TWO (2) rails is tricky enough to balance, >> but maybe I missed your point. ?? >> Are you saying, "this is LESS friction with a single (bottom sphere) >> track, then on 'two sided contact?' If so, Which "makes sense to me too", >> I think you should try to even get the 'single-SMOT'(double-rail) even >> linked together to see the troubles! Someone mentioned a TUBE!! a >> plumbing tube (P-Joint) Are you cutting Friction in 1/2?? GREAT!! >> >> se >> ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ >> -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 >> ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 >> ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX > Hi Steve. The monorail idea for the curve is ONLY for the 180 degree turn. This is not intended for the SMOT, only after the ball drops onto the n-gauge track and then converts to the monorail curve. Here is a .gif picture of the curved monorail idea: Hope that makes sense. Jeff Hinman Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\SMOT-CRV.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 08:55:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: 12 Jun 97 11:04:25 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: vortex Subject: Low-level rollaway Resent-Message-ID: <"xaGcD.0.zw5.Gk1ep"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8201 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com To:Vortex Gnorts, I thought that perhaps Greg and others might be interested in something "we" just found out. At present we have a bit of a problem because the magnets we have (40*10*4mm, arranged into blocks 80*10*16mm) are cast and fired rather than cut to shape. So they are bent and difficult to stack properly. But Soo was working on a single-ramp set up (we use 0.5" high, 0.5" outside width aluminium channel) and found no difficulty in getting a rollaway onto another piece of the same channel, using the S-curve exit that Greg defined. The catch is that the ini tial (flat) part of the ramp has to be 1mm above the piece of channel onto which it rolls away. So there can be no claim of an anomaly in that specific arrangement, but we were very interested to see that Greg's stated requirement of a clear increase of several mm and a *vertical* fall away from the last ramp doesn't seem to be necessary. Instead, one would only need to make sure that the *previous* ramp achieved 1mm (or possibly 1.5mm) from the initial start point. The last ramp could then be made with an S-curve exit and a rollaway at the initial level would be possible. Obviously, if the previous ramps achieved more than the 1.0 - 1.5mm, then you could have a sloping-downward rollaway. Unfortunately, the magnet arrays she was using are the best (least bent magnets) we have, and I doubt whether we can get a good lift fro m previous ramps. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 08:54:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:38:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:37:47 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"-dUCW2.0.YD5.hV1ep"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8199 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I think Greg has taken the SMOT to the Australian "bush" to eliminate such possibilities. I have not heard from him anything about the SMOT's performance being affected. Also the EM energy would need to be rectified in some way in order to provide a net force vector in one direction. I do not see any such rectification mechanism in SMOT. At 06:42 PM 6/9/97 +0000, you wrote: >I think the "artifact-(s)" if not the 1/2 gauss geomagnetic field is >in the background electromagnetic waves, (or both). > >The energy flow AT ANY FREQUENCY is: E^2/(e/u)^1/2 watts/meter^2 or in >vacuum E^2/377. E is volts/meter and 377 is the impedance of space 377 ohms. > >0.05 volts/meter is a pretty powerful radio signal,but, the 50-60 hertz from >the wiring in a building or power lines can exceed this. > >The energy density, watts/meter^3 from the E field is e*E^2/2 joule/meter^3 >from the H field u*H^2/2 watts/meter^3 = u[(e/u)^1/2]^2/2 = e*E^2/2. > >With all of the "background" electromagnetic energy floating around with >a constant of (x) watts/meter^2/hertz if this effects the ball at the >"null point" enough to supply the keep-going energy, "free energy" but not >perpetual motion per se, and no "new physics". :-) > > The EM penetration into the ball the equivalent depth of penetration; >D, to where the current falls off to 1/2 its vacuum value >= [1/(pi)*f*u*(rho)]^1/2 where f is frequency hertz, >u is the permeability of the ball, and (rho) is the conductivity of >the ball, mhos/meter. > >I think that when one gets through wading through this the energy source >for the "roll" will be explained. > >Regards, Frederick > > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 09:32:41 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:30:30 -0700 From: Timothy Girard To: "'freenrg-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: Another possible ball turning idea Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:30:36 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"TQU07.0.b21.bG2ep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3789 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Please keep the vids and reports comming! All of us who just can't get the time to do our own smot, like myself sure do appreciate it. How about running the ball under the smot itself ? instead of losing from sending the ball around the side you could at least utilize one of the curves (At the top) to gain speed and send the ball twards the bottom of the smot. Also, (If this could be don e) you could get a cycle with one smot. -Tim Content-Type: application/ms-tnef xŸ>"&X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 10:02:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:01:08 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 17:55:30 +0000 From: Duncan and Janette To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: JLN pages Resent-Message-ID: <"za_K4.0.Ap2.Ij2ep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3790 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Does anyone know why JLN's SMOT pages are missing from his web page. Duncan X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 12:55:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:54:12 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:51:08 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: JLN pages References: <33A03812.5F49@dial.pipex.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"YQQAL2.0.Yq3.ZF5ep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3792 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Duncan and Janette wrote: > > Does anyone know why JLN's SMOT pages are missing from his web page. > > Duncan I just tried and had no trouble accessing them. The URL I used is: http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/smotidx.htm X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 13:03:49 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:02:22 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:08:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: Dave DeLeo cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: JLN pages = OK! Resent-Message-ID: <"F5BVK3.0.KE4.DN5ep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3793 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Dave DeLeo wrote: > > Duncan and Janette wrote: > > Does anyone know why JLN's SMOT pages are missing from his web page. > > I just tried and had no trouble accessing them. The URL I used is: > http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/smotidx.htm > > [It wasn't just you :) ] Above address is ok *now*.. I saw as you *saw* last night also, about 11:30 MST, returned Error 500 Page Not Found from AOL, Maybe they were doing a system reboot or something. Anyway JNL is back. se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 15:50:34 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:45:38 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Mark II Progress References: <339EBD86.2737@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"LSAcu3.0.iW.ep7ep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3794 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > ->- > / \ > / \ > | | > --- --- > | | | | > --- --- > | | | | > --- --- > | | > \ / > \ / > -<- > > Not working yet! The curves are very lossy and I am working with level > rollaway ramps. > Greg, I am working with a similar setup. I am only using 2 ramps (one on each side of the curve, no direct linking). I have a similar problem, the ball just won't make it to the next ramp, between the back attraction of the magnets and friction. I have to tr y a different configuration when I get some time. I still haven't found the time to try and link multiple ramps. I was hoping to get a rollaround using only one. A few quick questions: What size are your arrays now? Did Terry's array design help alot? How is the RMOD coming? I have been looking at the second drawing you sent for several days and still can't seem to figure out how it works. All I can see is that ball A will be drawn up the ramp and the weight of ball B will tilt the ball support. The support will either hit the entrance of the ramp or if it is designed to clear the ramp the support will hang vertically w/ ball B at the bott om (possibly B will fall off and the support will balance again). I'm probably misinterpeting or missing something in your drawing. If you could help me out I'd appreciate it. How much does Qfield cost and where can I get it from (do they have a website possibly w/ a shareware trial version)? It seems to be one of the most usefull tools out there and may be worth the investment. Thank You, Dave DeLeo X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 16:05:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:05:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Resent-Message-ID: <"rlKgE2.0.l-.N38ep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3795 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Dave DeLeo wrote: >How much does Qfield cost and where >can I get it from (do they have a >website possibly w/ a shareware trial >version)? It seems to be one of the >most usefull tools out there and may >be worth the investment. Hi Dave, QuickField is made by Tera Analysis Company. They have a web site: http://www2.tera-analysis.com/tera/ The full-blown version is very expensive, but the free "shareware students version" is described at: http://www2.tera-analysis.com/tera/trial.htm Dan Quickert X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 22:12:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:11:18 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 01:08:18 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Qfield sims data files Resent-Message-ID: <"wFKWR.0.-w4.qPDep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3797 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, Could you please send me the raw data files from Qfield that you used to create the SMOT sims. I would like to try experimenting with them. Thanks, Dave PS Does anyone have any helpfull hints for new quickfield users? I just downloaded it today and haven't had much time to play with it yet. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 23:58:37 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 23:57:24 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 02:45:22 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: gh54@dial.pipex.com Subject: Re : JLN pages Resent-Message-ID: <"qPoNP.0.JU2.GzEep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3798 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 13/06/1997 06:52:43 , gh54@dial.pipex.com (Duncan and Janette) wrote : << Does anyone know why JLN's SMOT pages are missing from his web page. Duncan >> All seems working correctly,..... Don't forget to click on "reload" or "update" button, your internet navigator workspace must be updated sometimes, Towards Overunity now at..... http://members.aol.com/jnaudin509/index.htm Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 18:42:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 18:41:28 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 15:40:06 -1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Not all balls are created equal Resent-Message-ID: <"RIqDC3.0.LX5.7RVep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3808 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tim - > I found something interesting. I have a ramp that > will work with one ball but not another of the same > size and manufacture. One ball shoots over the > ramp, the other does not even make it all the way > up the ramp. You might want to check for residual magnetism. Use could use a needle (make sure *it* isn't magnetized) hanging from a thread or similar to see magnetism that might not be obvious. I bet the bad ball's magnetized. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 05:02:36 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 05:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 21:27:59 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT and Qfield page Resent-Message-ID: <"EbeFE3.0.LU1.ARJep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3799 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have updated my web site with the QField software I use and the model files for the SMOT sims. There are TWO versions of QField around. One has a 200 node mesh limit (on the QField site) and the one on my site has a 500 node mesh limit. Hope this helps. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 06:14:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 06:10:06 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 07:05:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: "Glenville T. Sawyer" Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, compost@listproc.wsu.edu, greenbuilding@cre st.org, strawbale@crest.org Subject: compost co-generator Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"QxRMu.0.g82.jQKep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3801 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Further to the useful message from Glenville Sawyer (THANK YOU) below, are there any articles, recollections, anecdotes or reports on using an optimized compost pile to generate both hot water and electricity, while producing garden fertilizer? Large amou nts are not needed. Anyone else want to try this out this summer? IF ANYONE IS CONNECTED TO THE SOLAR OR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NEWSGROUPS, COULD YOU PLEASE FORWARD THIS NOTE TO THEM TO RESPOND TO MY E-MAIL ADDRESS? Your assistance would be appreciated. _____________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect - in full-time professional practice since 1976, strawbale work since 1978 - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sust ainable home and office Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jdo/ecotecture.htm ____________________________________________________________ On Fri 13 Jun 1997, Glenville T. Sawyer wrote: > > I read with interest the thread concerning Generating Electricity from > Compost, yes this does indeed work, power levels are not great - but > such a basic concept - really worth trying. > When I worked in Solar / Alternative energy, we had a demo setup to > heat water using Compost, the idea here is that as the material decays > heat develops, with several metres of Black Poly tubing laid under / > within a compost heap - you can indeed measure an quite substantial > increase in water temperature. > -- > Glenville T. Sawyer mailto:glenville@techie.com > Home-site http://dove.net.au/~gsawyer - please visit > Lighting, Concerts, Special Events & Extra Special Effects X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 10:38:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 10:34:09 -0700 From: "SAM GORDON" To: Subject: Is www.keelynet.com down? Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:37:31 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"d_Q931.0.fv3.GIOep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3802 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Is www.keelynet.com down, moved, or just gone? thanks X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 12:10:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 12:09:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Hinman, Jeffrey M" To: "'Free Energy'" Subject: Permanent Magnet Motor Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 11:44:09 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZVBti3.0.Qr1.UhPep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3803 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi inventors. Here is a patent that I ran across. Look it up on a patent search. I think you'll find it interesting. United States Patent 4,151,431 and 4,877,983 Inventor: Howard Johnson, 1979 and 1989 On the internet, use these locations: http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4151431 http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4877983 The first one describes a permanent magnet device with no power input that converts rotating motion created from the magnets to useful work. Explains the motive force is unpaired electron spins in the permanent magnets. The second one has similarities to the SMOT. You might also try: http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5436518 It describes a permanent magnet motor with electromagnet assist. It should be much more efficient than a normal electromagnetic motor. Thought you would all like to see that. Jeff Hinman Seattle, WA X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 15:50:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 15:45:07 -0700 From: "Jim Shaffer, Jr." To: Subject: Re: Is www.keelynet.com down? Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:56:30 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"OSEv72.0.qT3.lrSep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3806 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com It was OK yesterday. I haven't checked today. "I don't want the world -- I just want your half." --T.M.B.G. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 19:02:33 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 19:02:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darknet.net: Host ts1p57.bmts.com [204.191.100.157] claimed to be bmts.com.bmts.com Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 22:00:13 -0400 From: Steve Reply-To: darklord@darknet.net Organization: DarkNet Technologies To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Is www.keelynet.com down? References: <199706132339.SAA24901@csrlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"tAVKx2.0.QL4.YkVep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3809 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com It seems to be working fine now.. -Steve X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 19:38:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 19:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 21:28:05 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Is www.keelynet.com down? References: <199706131733.NAA23957@ns.bluegrass.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"G_kpN3.0.JL5.qEWep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3810 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Sam! Nothing has changed except for some changes at the server, it should stabilize by this weekend...thanks.... -- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, Republic of Texas - 75187 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 05:09:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 05:07:53 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 21:32:38 -0700 From: "Glenville T. Sawyer" Reply-To: gsawyer@dove.net.au Organization: Making a "CONCERTed EFFort" - Lighting, Theatre, Concerts, Special Events and effects. To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Compost power / Teeter-Totter & more. References: <199706100249.TAA08372@mx1.eskimo.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"yhEso3.0.Sw7.OWJep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3800 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi gang, after a few days very busy in the Theatre side of my life I read with interest the thread concerning Generating Electricity from Compost, yes this does indeed work, power levels are not great - but such a basic concept - really worth trying. When I worked in Solar / Alternative energy, we had a demo setup to heat water using Compost, the idea here is that as the material decays heat develops, with several metres of Black Poly tubing laid under / within a compost heap - you can indeed measure an quite substantial increase in water temperature. Go for it. Teeter-Totter ! I am not currently in a position to try this concept out, but if a pair of SMOT ramps were connected and balanced such that Ramp "A" ball would cause the assembly to tilt ( say to the left ), at that point in the motion ramp "B" ball would be starting on the upramp - YES it would call for close balancing - but hear me out .... As the two ramps swing (effectively) up and down, then the movement of the Magnetic strips could be used to induce voltage into some linear pick-up coils either side - AND either end of the moving ramps. Granted the recovered current may only be miniscule, but if the multiple collectro coils are Paralled ( or rectified / blocking diode ) then an increase in either output Voltage or Current could be achieved. Just my $0.02 worth for now. I'll be back again soon. Glenville. -- Glenville T. Sawyer mailto:glenville@techie.com Home-site http://dove.net.au/~gsawyer - please visit Lighting, Concerts, Special Events & Extra Special Effects X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 21:41:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 21:39:10 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 21:38:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: SMOT and Qfield page Resent-Message-ID: <"57Ltb.0.w14.j1Yep"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8254 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, Your site is looking better all the time. I see you fixed the counter. Looking foreward to hearing more on your SMOT and RMOD research updates. Best Regards, Michael At 09:27 PM 6/13/97 +0930, you wrote: >Hi All, > >I have updated my web site with the QField software I use and the model >files for the SMOT sims. There are TWO versions of QField around. One >has a 200 node mesh limit (on the QField site) and the one on my site >has a 500 node mesh limit. > >Hope this helps. > >-- >Best Regards, > Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ > > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 01:36:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:36:18 -0700 (PDT) From: vex@unicall.be X-Sender: vex@unicall.be (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: something new : drawing(s) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 10:35:00 +0200 Resent-Message-ID: <"jwb8i.0.h27._Vbep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3812 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com .... >Wow, that seems like a long time. I was able to power an LCD watch for >about two months with a potatoe ... the potatoe dried up. I'm sure that if >you kept the fruit/vegetable/compost hydrated that you could extend the >life of the battery. > >Do you have questions about how to connect the containers? If so then I >can easily draw wiring diagram for you. > > >Anthony Tekatch > >tekatcha@pop.ghbbs.com > In my humble opinion, I think that a wiring diagram would be interesting to all the readers of the list. As always : a (small) drawing of something can explain more than pages of text and provide more visual idea to a system. I have seen more requests for drawings before, and also recently in another article, amongst them : the SMOT device, for which Mr Greg made quite some efforts to make his system understandeable with detailed drawings. I (personally) cannot stress enough to make a drawing of what you mean. Anyone another idea ? Johnny / Belgium X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 09:17:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 09:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 13:58:30 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Retro TOMI References: <19970614093235.AAA2169@LOCALNAME> <33A28C9C.47A9@keelynet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"cZxKw2.0.IL1.2Aiep"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8269 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jerry wrote: > > Gnorts Vorts! > > Thought with all the flutter about Greg Watsons SMOT, it might be > interesting to compare to the TOMI. I built it and it worked, the > principles are very similar. Chuck Hendersons daughter built one > and entered it in the Science Fair, winning first prize.....check out; > Hi Jerry, Could you give more construction details and self powering criteria (e.g. starting and ending levels and the roll away conditions) on the device that you build. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 04:58:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 04:58:03 -0700 Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 05:22:42 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Retro TOMI References: <199706131733.NAA23957@ns.bluegrass.net> <33A21DD5.5E5A@keelynet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"7VwT2.0.sA1.9Teep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3813 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Folks! With the advent of Greg Watsons SMOT, thought it might be interesting to compare to the original TOMI. I built it and it works, Chuck Hendersons daughter built it for Science Fair and one first prize. The two are strikingly similar.....check out; http://www.keelynet.com/energy/tomibild.htm -- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, Republic of Texas - 75187 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 00:51:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 00:51:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: <19970614093235.AAA2169@LOCALNAME> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 21:49:18 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Retro TOMI Resent-Message-ID: <"j66pi3.0.6k5.1yvep"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8293 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jerry - I was unaware that the ANE tested device was not a 'real' TOMI - figures. I kow myself how hard it is to follow the recipe! I'm not completely convinced yet on the SMOTs, but I know I've seen something strange when I can get a pair of ramps to link. I just need more time to do a series of them and see if I cna get enough altitude gain for a rollback. *Then* I'll know for sure. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 17:35:00 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 17:34:30 -0700 From: "Wes Crosiar" To: Subject: magnetic bubbles Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 09:23:38 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"lnhPO.0.mU2.KYpep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3817 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Jerry: John Bedini told me you had a file on forming magnetic bubbles. If you do I could use it. I think you are right about Don, I heard from walt that he got at least 30 watts from his device. He is now working for Reed. THANKS WES X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 10:39:38 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 10:38:36 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 13:38:00 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Pendulum design SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"8zVkk2.0.Ty4.QSjep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3814 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com For what it's worth, I am going to pursue a pendulum design of the SMOT, if it shows overunity, I will build vacuum chamber with window. (talk about low friction) Butch LaFonte X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 11:43:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 11:40:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Pendulum design SMOT Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 18:36:55 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"9G6DZ1.0.w35.1Mkep"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8275 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 05:38 PM 6/14/97 +0000, HLafonte wrote: >For what it's worth, >I am going to pursue a pendulum design of the SMOT, if it shows overunity, I >will build vacuum chamber with window. (talk about low friction) >Butch LaFonte > Good idea, Butch. But, if you put it in a vaccum chamber, figure on a high emissivity coating on the ball, an electric heater for the magnets, LN2 cooling and a high emissivity coating for the walls of the vacuum chamber. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 14:01:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 13:59:29 -0700 Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 15:52:16 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Retro TOMI References: <19970614093235.AAA2169@LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"3-PiK2.0.Ms7.mOmep"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8280 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Rick! Yes, I am well aware of the ANE report...however, you will note the test bed as shown in the article was FAR from the original TOMI design and therefore not a true test of the principle. The test should faithfully copy the original design to be valid. I understand they were attempting to measure if there was an excess of energy, but what is most important is the use of the magnetic thrust which is reset by gravity when it is reloaded by falling into the next ramp....this makes it an intriguing experime nt. Scott Little also did a report on the TOMI as being not overunity...in my opinion, the TOMI in the form described originally by Stewart Harris and copied in the TOMIBILD file simply illustrates an anomaly based on what Stewart calls 'magnetic instability' ....I haven't written it off yet because I built it as described and it did what was claimed. Nothing about free energy or overunity, just that it might possibly run itself, unity, and thats a start. Though I've not yet put together a Watson SMOT device with the tapered side rails, it looks like it produces a magnetic gradient, much like the KAWAI patent using Beardens 'regauging'/reloading effect. I plan to build two opposing units, where the ball m oves up, then falls into the opposite unit, thereby hoping to see it self-running. I think it was Greg who claimed a run of 3.5 days using such a design. The wonderful thing about all this is the willingness of people to share their ideas and experiments, especially Greg for sharing his results. A shame there are so many who still refuse to build one, rather wanting ever more details, nitpicking the posts or commenting on why it won't or can't work.....that seems to be about 70% to 90% of the mail I see, so it is quickly deleted. The point with dredging up the TOMI again is that it was the first of this ilk and people should be aware of it. It is to Gregs credit that he chose to use the much more stable steel ball as the runner instead of the stacked roller magnets of the TOMI. The bottomline is, they both work and have excited a lot of people....just so... -- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, Republic of Texas - 75187 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 17:17:16 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 17:16:25 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 09:41:05 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOTs and lift-dropaway=rollaway testing Resent-Message-ID: <"RQ1Dd3.0.nR1.MHpep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3816 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I am still working on the SMOT Mark II design. I am very close to a solid ONE ramp rollaway design. Here are some hints to get good exits and how to test if your ramps are good canidates for rollaway. One major modification I would suggest you ALL make is to enhance the stability of your existing designs. I have found that by firmly attaching the ramps to a sturdy base and using "Blu-Tack" under the magnet arrays, I can get 20-30% better operation. I have found that the magnets move as the ball gets to the top of the ramp. I think that we all know that adjustments at the top are tight. Secure your ramps. Secure your magnets. IT REALLY HELPS to get repeatable results. 1) To get good exits, the magnets position up the ramp must be determined. There is a "Sweet Spot" where the ball will just "Hang" over the exit lip. You can find or test for this position by sliding the magnets up and down the ramp. Manually place t he ball so it is just hanging over the end of the exit rails. If it climbs up the exit lip, the magnets need to be moved further up the ramp as the magnetic exit wall is pushing the ball back too much and exits will cost a lot of energy. If the ball is sucked sideways, move the magnets down the ramp to increase the force of the exit wall and slightly force the ball to stay against the exit rails. Side attraction can also be caused by your magnets not being balanced. Once everything is balanced side to side, you should be able to side the magnets up and down about 10mm. As you slide the magnets down, you will notice the ball being lifted out of its exit "Hole" and being forced backward down the ramp. NOW slide the magnets up the ramp until the ball d rops slighthy down over the lip and hangs there. MARK this position. Release a ball and observe the operation. The ball should exit cleanly. If the ball still hangs, try moving the arrays up 1mm at a time until you get a release. If the ball is sucke d to one side, move the magnets down 0.5mm and try again. Always refer to the MARKED static magnet position when doing dynamic adjustments. It is CRITICAL to good exits to use as LITTLE of the pushback of the magnetic wall as possible. Good side to side balancing will allow for the magnets to be moved up the ramp slightly and use less push back force. 2) Once you have achieved the above, increase the lift height 0.5mm at a time, rechecking the above exit adjustments. Continue increasing lift height until you can get no more out of your ramp. 3) NOW, place a ball at the exit "Hole" and manually push the ball down until you get a "Dropaway". Do this several times until you get a good feel for what you are doing. NOW measure the distance you must push the ball down and report back. I find t hat I can get a 14mm lift averaged over 10 SMOT Mark I ramps. At that lift, I need to push the ball down 8mm until I get "Dropaway". This means that I have 6mm of drop to overcome the drag back magnetic field of the exit. With a SMOT Mark I ramp that i s not enough. With the SMOT Mark II ramps, I can get a 12mm lift (Not as much as SMOT Mark I), but the "Dropaway" is only 3mm. This gives me an extra 3mm of drop (14-8=6 V 12-3=9) on the new design. You NOW need to do this on your ramps and report your results. The work with the SMOT Mark II ramps has shown me that its not just pure lift that we must achieve. Its lift-dropaway=rollaway energy that is the design goal. Hope that this has helped to redefine the short term goals. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 22:30:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 22:21:20 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 04:24:50 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: SMOTs and lift-dropaway=rollaway testing Resent-Message-ID: <"Uf_9x.0.hf5.Dltep"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8289 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Greg, I am hurry for the SMOT Mark II. Could you post us a beta release design? Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 00:10:38 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:45:05 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: harti@shell2.ba.best.com (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: free energy from compost Resent-Message-ID: <"TDomA3.0.h16.XSsep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3819 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > >Hi! I haven't personally done work with this, but I have, somewhere, a >report by a gentleman somewhere in the Atlantic provinces that has managed >to get somewhat useable power from rotting rice husks. He has produced an >average 1.5 v from a "battery" about the size of D cells for aprox. 2 >weeks or ao. I can't remember the specific bacteria involved, but it >seemed to be a common one. So, it does seem possible to get electricity >this way. I'd reccomend putting a few "batteries" together, using >disparate metals such as copper and aluminum, dump in your compost >material, and give it a go. > >john > >The problem is: Hi, It just works like a normal battery and you will get Aluminium and Copper electrolyte inside the waste products, which are harmful to the environment ! (or have to be recycled with using lots of high cost primary energy !) Not a very good idea ! Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 23:07:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 22:24:42 -0400 From: B25B@LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: B25B@LCIA.COM To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Earth batteries Resent-Message-ID: <"Jw4nJ2.0.E06.yQsep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3818 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi folks: Has anyone done any experimenting with earth batteries? I understand impressive amounts of over unity energy can be gotten. Ron Brennen X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 22:40:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 22:40:02 -0700 Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:45:37 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: klicco@es.co.nz cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: RMOD Resent-Message-ID: <"Hr_PP1.0.gv7.m0uep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3820 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Paul, I'm trying to send you my first '.attached-email'gif ever, if it comes through, please let me know... I visited you home page (it's really NICE) and saw your RMOD or Last Photo (this date). I'd tried a similar desk top experiemt with small mags and n-ga uge track... it really looked like it wanted to go (see gif S/N)!! Your CORE *is* different in set up, I will try that next.. should know by tomorrow or so. These (smot's) are great.. I lucked out and got BIG roll-a-way first thing!! - lucky me :) ... I thought of 'Nautilas shell' shaped Amplifiers and Rail Guns right of the bat!.. I'll repost this to freenrg-l if you like.. stuck here with a 4086 win.BMP files converted by cshow.. so don't know if it'll be viewable to you. [no browser/no disk space (sigh)] ------------- My most noted comment, besides you going (and ahead of me) in my thought direction on RMOD is it 'appears Backwards' in almost every thing I try! ---------------- Greg mentioned that if it were going to be OU it would be 'inverted'. fun stuff if you havn't built one yet. p.s. your Page LOOKS & Came across Great to mile-high Denver Colorado/usa i need to update this !#%$ system... ahh $$.. :) se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX heck, i'll save band-width & just add freenrg-l now then I can see for myself... I like your "pendleum armed - self staring idea".. 2nd to tinker with (have you thought about a third arm (one always in the track?). Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF; name="paul.gif" Content-ID: Content-Description: Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\PAUL.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 00:26:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 00:25:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 01:23:31 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: free energy from compost Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"YOPOg1.0.zm3.jZvep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3821 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > > Hi, > > It just works like a normal battery and you will get Aluminium and Copper > electrolyte inside the waste products, which are harmful to the environment ! > (or have to be recycled with using lots of high cost primary energy !) > > Not a very good idea ! That was my concern, too. About the only thing I could think of to deal with the metals was to *possibly* use high salt tolerant plants, but from what I understand, the plants don't destroy the metals. They just store them. Which makes them useless for b iomass anyhow. Growing the plants using the high metal content compost defeats the purpose of producing the compost. It was just a thought, anyhow. :) John X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 00:58:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 00:58:05 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 03:57:32 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: klicco@es.co.nz Subject: Re : Re: Pendulum design SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"2gelF.0.Ra4.B2wep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3822 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 15/06/1997 07:23:38 , Paul Callender wrote : << Have a look at my web page with my pendulum design RMOD. It's at http://www.es.co.nz/~klicco/home.htm . Tell me what you think. Thanks, ................... Paul Callender Email: klicco@es.co.nz Christchurch 5, New Zealand >> Hi Paul, Very interesting ideas about the RMOD, I have added the link to your Web site in my SMOT Home page....I suggest to all SMOT'ters to visit the Paul's Web site, now. Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:11:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:10:03 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:53:23 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Rotary SMOT attemp References: <19970329.212755.8598.0.tv@juno.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"em7MU1.0.ti6.e5xep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3827 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tim D Vaughan wrote: > > Hi Greg and other SMOT builders, > > I have a well behaved ramp that I think might have a chance at working > in a rotary version. It uses 1 7/8 inch by 3/8 inch by 3/8 inch ceramic > ( approx. 50 mm x 10 mm x 10 mm) > magnets that are stacked two deep by two wide with a piece of 1/8 inch > by 1/2 inch (3 mm x 13 mm)x iron strip between them. Interestingly, > it seems to work better with the strip between instead of behind. > > The ramp is 3.5 inches (90 mm) long. The balls I use are 5/8 inch > (16 mm). The track is 1/2 inch ( 13 mm) aluminum U channel. > > I have linked it to another track. Very touchy. Occasionally I get a > roll > away but not sure whether I impart a tiny bit of extra energy with my > finger. > This ramp is very good at dropping the ball off the end to about 1mm > above level > or below. It seems I might have a possibility of trying the > rotary arrangement like you (Greg) posted. > > My idea is to build a cylinder with a hub on one end consisting of > two disks with model race car ball bearings in the center of a shaft > attached through center of disk to race car bearings The open > end of cylinder would contain the race track with balls. The ramp > and magnets would be inserted in the end. This way adjustments > could be made. > > Does this sound reasonable as a way to recycle balls ? I thought it > might be > worth a try since ball falls off the ramp so well. > > Tim Vaughan > (tv@juno.com) Hi Tim, While level rollways are all the rage, few have though about ball recovery systens which work by the ball dropping straight down. If you think about the dynamics of such systems, you can do a loop. Good luck, keep me informed. Drop downs are a real way to go. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:11:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:54:42 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Energy Measurments References: <19970329.215954.8598.1.tv@juno.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"63Fdn2.0.NV.A6xep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3825 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tim D Vaughan wrote: > > Fellow SMOTE enthusiasts, > > I have been doing some preliminary comparisons of the > kinetic energy of the ball from a SMOTE ramp. I have a well > behave ramp. I wanted to compare the kinetic energy of > a ball falling from the launch point to the kinetic energy > of a ball falling from the end of the ramp. > > Using an impulse method, it seems that the ball gains about > 5 percent more kinetic energy after going over the ramp as compared > to the just dropping it from the launch point which is the place where > a ball just begins to get "sucked" up the ramp. I can only give > a ratio because my instrument is not calibrated yet. > > A very accurate way to determine the kinetic energy of the ball would be > to time it electronically after it falls from the ramp and compare it > with the ball falling from the launch point. > > I want to do this but I am working on a rotary version (Mark I ) type > first. > > Thank You Greg for all the fun ! My wife thinks I am loosing my marbles > ! > > Tim Vaughan > (tv@juno.com) > > ( send attachments to [ tim.vaughan@ccc-infonet.edu ] ) HI Tim, My wife agrees. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:12:28 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 18:06:03 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Word of Encouragement and a question References: <19970330.214115.11006.0.tv@juno.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"98BTG.0.-X.f6xep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3829 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tim D Vaughan wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > Your ideas and help to others have been a great encouragement > to me to further investigate for myself what I have long thought > of as a most promising new way to produce energy. Thank You ! > > I take it from your most recent postings of GIF's of RMOD that you > are trying to get others to think along those lines. There are probably > quite a few who are just now getting started on investigating the > SMOT and others like myself who have been playing with ramps > and magnets for a couple of weeks. So far I have managed to link > ramps but roll away eludes me. One of your kits is probably a > good investment. I will let you know when I send the money order. > > They are very fussy mechanisms. But I am fairly convinced that something > is happening in the ball or iron strip (or both) that is adding a small > amount > of energy to the ball each time it goes through the ramp. Obviously > your closed loop units prove this. Please, just as a way to encourage > those that are still on the fence and waiting to see what happens > before taking SMOTs seriously enough to investigate, could you > put a picture on your web page of the closed loop unit ? A moving > AVI file would be slick but still would be good as well. The SMOT Mark II ramps are being designed to do a simple to do rollaway. > I am having quite a time fitting together a reasonable design out > of PVC pipe, plexiglass, and race car bearings. I wish to try a ferris > wheel RMOD version. Do you think it is nessessary to have a "seat " > for each ball on the "ferris wheel" or can the balls just sit on each > other > around inside bottom half of the rotating cylinder ? The balls on the "Ferris wheel" can't touch each other. If they do so, much force is required to part them. I speak from experience! Seems there is an "underunity" effect in operation here. More force required to seperate than oppose attraction! But that's the power of ferromagnetics!!!!!!!!!!!! Try testing the force of attraction on the face of the arrays, then test the force on the top or bottom of the arrays on the back steel strip. The force of breaking the attraction is 4-6 times as great!!!!!!!!!!! The steel backing strip, via its soft domain alignment, results in a much greater force to pull the ball away from the back than the front. > Tim Vaughan > Modesto, California > > tv@juno.com ( my every day mail ) > > for attachments send to: < tim.vaughan@ccc0infonet.edu >. > ( work email at College, allows attachments but is clumsey to use > until it gets fixed ) -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:12:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 18:08:06 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutral Zones, Gary, SMOT, Coler References: <97Jun10.140232bst.74884@gatehouse.powys.gov.uk> <19970331.074033.8622.0.tv@juno.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"pfcsf.0.sW.P6xep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3828 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tim D Vaughan wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:04:50 +0100 Geoff Greaves > writes: > > >Documentation on Gary's neutral line mentions a shielding effect; did > >you confirm this aspect as well as/or polarity reversal, Tim? > > > >Cheers, geoff greaves > > Hi Geoff, > > Yes, I did see the shielding effect when I made a teeter-totter > arrangment, > with two sets of magnets with opposite poles facing each other, just like > is shown in the diagram in the article about Gary. > ( figure 2 in the Gary Article, see web page: > < http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4810 > ) > > It may be described as a shielding effect or an induced magnetism in the > iron piece. Which I think is the same thing. It seems that at the > "neutral point" > opposite magnetizations are induced in the piece of iron (steel) that > result > in net zero magnetization of the iron. That is why the small pins and > paper > clips fall off just like it describes in the article. (fig. 1 in Gary > article) > > The next step would be to try to build reciprocating mechanism described > in > the article. According to the article this is a tricky machine to > adjust, just > like the SMOT. Although I am fairly convinced that the SMOT and the > Gary Magnet > motor work, I would sure like to see one of these machines run ! > > I am still fiddling with the ramps. I think I am going to invest in one > of those > kits from Greg Watson. > > Even though it is fun to speculate on the cause of the Watson, Gary, and > Coler phenomena, it is really premature since each of these have only > been demonstrated by individuals. They need to be replicated by more > than one person. Although I dont, one could always argue that > the inventors had/have telekinetic abilities or ghosts or something. One > could also argue that there is some kind of trick, but I don't see what > any > of these inventors would gain from this. Greg Watson, Han Coler, and > Wesley Gary all were very open about sharing there ideas and > demonstrating > there devices in working form. > > Lets keep trying to replicate some sort of closed loop SMOT but if this > does not happen, Greg, Could one of us come to Australia and see > your invention and act as a reporter. Take measurements and videos > etc... ? NO need Tim, the SMOT Mark II ramps will answer the question! > Tim Vaughan > ( tv@juno.com ) -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:14:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 18:08:06 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutral Zones, Gary, SMOT, Coler References: <97Jun10.140232bst.74884@gatehouse.powys.gov.uk> <19970331.074033.8622.0.tv@juno.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"pfcsf.0.LW.L6xep"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8296 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tim D Vaughan wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:04:50 +0100 Geoff Greaves > writes: > > >Documentation on Gary's neutral line mentions a shielding effect; did > >you confirm this aspect as well as/or polarity reversal, Tim? > > > >Cheers, geoff greaves > > Hi Geoff, > > Yes, I did see the shielding effect when I made a teeter-totter > arrangment, > with two sets of magnets with opposite poles facing each other, just like > is shown in the diagram in the article about Gary. > ( figure 2 in the Gary Article, see web page: > < http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4810 > ) > > It may be described as a shielding effect or an induced magnetism in the > iron piece. Which I think is the same thing. It seems that at the > "neutral point" > opposite magnetizations are induced in the piece of iron (steel) that > result > in net zero magnetization of the iron. That is why the small pins and > paper > clips fall off just like it describes in the article. (fig. 1 in Gary > article) > > The next step would be to try to build reciprocating mechanism described > in > the article. According to the article this is a tricky machine to > adjust, just > like the SMOT. Although I am fairly convinced that the SMOT and the > Gary Magnet > motor work, I would sure like to see one of these machines run ! > > I am still fiddling with the ramps. I think I am going to invest in one > of those > kits from Greg Watson. > > Even though it is fun to speculate on the cause of the Watson, Gary, and > Coler phenomena, it is really premature since each of these have only > been demonstrated by individuals. They need to be replicated by more > than one person. Although I dont, one could always argue that > the inventors had/have telekinetic abilities or ghosts or something. One > could also argue that there is some kind of trick, but I don't see what > any > of these inventors would gain from this. Greg Watson, Han Coler, and > Wesley Gary all were very open about sharing there ideas and > demonstrating > there devices in working form. > > Lets keep trying to replicate some sort of closed loop SMOT but if this > does not happen, Greg, Could one of us come to Australia and see > your invention and act as a reporter. Take measurements and videos > etc... ? NO need Tim, the SMOT Mark II ramps will answer the question! > Tim Vaughan > ( tv@juno.com ) -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:11:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:09:51 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 18:10:27 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Not all balls are created equal References: <19970403.124257.9910.1.tv@juno.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"x9xnm3.0.hh6.U5xep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3826 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tim D Vaughan wrote: > > I found something interesting. I have a ramp that will work with one > ball > but not another of the same size and manufacture. One ball shoots over > the ramp, the other does not even make it all the way up the ramp. > > They are both clean new 5/8 inch ball bearings with no visible defects > from > the same box that I just bought from the bearing store. > > You might try several different balls to compare > how they behave. > > Tim Vaughan Hi Tim, You have been busy, I have observed the same effect. I "Select" my balls for min residual magnetism. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:12:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:10:24 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 18:12:09 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Real Time SMOT sims] References: <199706040305.WAA15412@dsm7.dsmnet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZOidR2.0.1l6.z5xep"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3830 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Dean T. Miller wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:35:38 +0930 > > From: Greg Watson > Hi Greg, Epitaxy, > > gwatson@microtronics.com.au wrote: > > > Anyone know any more about this magic magnetic field analysis paper? > > > > I would like to get a supply and include it in ALL SMOT kits. Should > > help ALL of us better adjust our SMOT ramps. > > American Science & Supply has what they call "Magnetic Film" which is a 25 x > 50 mm (1 x 2 inch) piece consisting of 2 layers of plastic inside which is > laminated a mixture of powdered iron, nickel and steel suspended in oil > droplets. > > It's described on page 19 of their Feb, 1996 catalog (#101) and their catalog > number is 10273 -- each piece is priced at $1.50 US. > > Their phone is 847-982-0870 and address is: > > American Science & Surplus > 3605 Howard Street > Skokie IL 60076 > > I ran across this item about 10 minutes before I read your message as I was > scouring my catalogs looking for better magnets. > > -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) Hi Dean, I will include this material n the SMOT kits. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:12:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 18:19:06 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Kit Offer and Web Agents Update 2nd June, 1997 References: <33921D32.73CC@microtronics.com.au> <3394579C.562B@worldonline.nl> Resent-Message-ID: <"LuTO82.0.2Z.u6xep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3831 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ronald de Mol wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WEB SITE OFFER <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > Web sites who WISH to display this SMOT Kit offer AND qualify to receive > > FREE SMOT Kits, the details are as follows : > > > > When I receive orders, I will enquire of the purchaser > > via which Web site they became aware of the SMOT. For > > every 5 orders I receive via your Web site, I will sent > > you a FREE Smot kit. This sort of makes you my agent > > on a 20% commission. You are able to onsell the SMOT > > kits if you so wish. If you have already purchased a > > SMOT kit for yourself, I will refund your money. > > > > I will have photos of the finished SMOT kits available with-in a week. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Good Smoting to all, > > Greg > > Hi Greg, > > I keep the 'Get your own kit' on my page, But anounce on it that if > someone makes a order on it, that they can give the (random) name of > one of the other WebHolders. > > Oke ? Sure, but you still deserve a "FREE" SMOYT kit. > If you have send out enough kits out, and think you can spare ONE, > it's ok if you send ONE kit to me, thats really enough for me... OK. its yours! > P.S.: > I have re-read some of the messages of You,Hal Puthoff,Barry Merriman > and my own, and they give roughly a outcome to me something like this: > 1) On the place where the ball is (in realtime), the field that would > have otherwise been there is (mostly) canceled out. Sucken in. > 2) Locally (around the ball) the field is amplified, to more than > twice the normal field strength (I think). (see *a) Much more. > It now looks like if this is happening: > > 1) The field inside the ball is pushed out (of the intaken ball space). The soft domains align and cause this. > 2) The push-out gifs a propulsion in all directions out of the ball. Yes. > 3) Because the ramps field strength (between the bars) is downwards less > than upwards, the netto propulsion force of the ball is in a upwards > direction (Ramp up). Yes. > (*a) > You put a magnet in a closed box (theoretical closed of all influence), > and calculate the TOTAL field (flux) of the magnet in the box. > Now you put a soft iron object near-by the magnet in the box. > The iron becomes now temporary a magnet. > Is the TOTAL field (flux) inside the closed box now more,less or the same ? .More. Proof is in the Rod & Coil discussion. > Maybe it's nothing, But if so, then either the field exist out of > particles, or there is a carrier that carries the flux, and is distorted > highly by soft iron (I vote for the 2nd). Amplified is the answer. > P.S.2: Don't worry, my bunch of 13*10*4.9 magnets arrive soon! ( I Hope ), > and can do then some real work... :-) > > -- > Best Regards, > Ronald. Hi Ronald, Soon I will publish the SMOT Mark II plans and all can do a rollaway! -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:17:34 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:16:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: The "Unidirectional Transformer" Article Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:16:21 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"Nskw32.0.-l.4Cxep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3832 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Here is a transcription of the uncopyrighted "Unidirectional Transformer" article in the 1994 Proceedings of the International Symposium On New Energy. I would appreciate comments, epecially sceptical ones from those who believe that the laws of elect romagnetics are fully known, and are self-evidently consistent with conservation laws. I will have some comments of my own to add later. Fred THE UNIDIRECTIONAL TRANSFORMER by Paul R. Jensen Dear Free-Energy enthusiast, I have built a transformer which supplies more power to its load than is drawn from its primary source. I named this device the Unidirectional Transformer (UDT), because the magnetic REACTION of the load current does not affect the magnetic ACTION of the primary circuit. The UDT is composed of a parallel LC resonant primary, a split secondary, a gapped magnetic core, and a "feedback winding". Virtually the only input power needed is that used to magnetize the core. The magnetic core I've used came from a small 60 Hz commercial power transformer made of interleaved silicon steel E laminations. Then I filed down the center leg of the E core about 15 mils to gap the combined E-I transformer core. The resulting mu of the core at 60 Hz was about 100. The primary winding is wound on the center leg of the core. The 2 secondary windings are wound on the 2 outer legs of the core, and are series connected. Both secondary windings have the same # of turns. The "feedback winding" is wound over the prim ary on the center leg, and is connected in series with the secondary. The Free-Energy action of the UDT follows directly from the laws of magnetic circuits. Consider what happens when an AC sine voltage is applied to the UDT primary. A magnetizing current flows, which can become rather high, because of the low mu of the core. Fortunately, gapping the core results in a fairly constant mu through the entir e AC cycle, up to a peak H of about 720 A-T/M. This results in a constant primary inductance, which permits parallel LC resonation. Resonating the primary reduces the magnetizing power to that necessary to match the I2R losses in the primary and the hys teresis losses in the core. Magnetizing the core results in an AC sine wave voltage being induced across the secondary. The magnetic coupling between the primary and the secondary is very high, but the core area within each secondary winding is only 1/2 that of the primary. Thi s means that the volts/turn of the secondary will be only 1/2 that of the primary. For the secondary voltage to equal the primary voltage, the secondary must have 2 times the # of turns in the primary. The primary also induces a voltage across the feedback coil, but the purposes and characteristics of the feedback coil will be explained later. When a current is drawn from the output, the 2 secondary windings each generate a magnetomotive force (MMF) directed against the MMF of the primary. The MMF of the each secondary winding "sees" a series-parallel magnetic circuit through the transform er core. One magnetic circuit, "seen" by each secondary winding, is through the center leg of the core. The other magnetic circuit "seen" by each secondary winding is through the 2 outer legs of the core. The resulting magnetic flux generated by the MMFs of the secondary windings is dependent on the reluctances of each of the magnetic circuits. Because the center leg is gapped, it has a higher reluctance than do the outer legs. This means that less magnetic flux from the secondary will pass through the center leg than will pass through the outer legs. In my transformer, the reluctances of the magnetic circuits through the center leg were 3x higher than the reluctances of the magnetic circuits. This was difficult to achieve, and required hours of filing, polishing, and fitting of the E and I cores. The alternative was to increase the gap, which was not acceptable in my particular design, because I was driving the transformer at 60 Hz. and could not afford any additional loss of mu in the core. Since the reluctances of the "outer leg circuits" were 3x higher than the reluctances of the "outer leg circuits", 1/4 of the secondary flux passed through the center leg, while 3/4 of the secondary flux passed through BOTH outer legs. Ther magnetic flux from the 2 secondary windings cancels in the "outer leg circuits", leaving only 1/4 of the total flux generated by the output current to react upon the primary. This resulted in a CURRENT GAIN in the secondary, relative to the prima ry. Lenz's law was bypassed, and Free-Energy resulted. An alternative explanation for the current gain in the UDT is to consider EACH secondary winding as acting as the primary winding for the OTHER secondary winding when an output current is drawn because the 2 secondary windings generate geometrically op posing fields. Now consider the "feedback winding". It is connected in series with the secondary, and is wound over the primary winding on the center leg of the core. When the core is magnetized an induced voltage will appear across the feedback winding which will subtract from the voltage across the secondary. The purpose of the feedback winding is to cancel the remaining secondary flux passing through the center leg of the core. It effectively isolates the currents in the priamry and the secondary at the cost of a reduced output voltage. The feedback winding generates a magnetic flux equal and opposite to the residual magnetic flux from the secondary when an output current is drawn. Given the above example, where 3/4 of the secondary flux self-cancels in the outer leg circuits, the feedback coil will only have to oppose 1/4 of the total secondary flux. Since the feedback winding has 2x the core area of the 2 outer windings, and c arries the full output current, it need have only 1/4 the # of turns of EACH secondary winding. However, this will reduce the the output voltage by 25%. So, to achieve the originally desired output voltage, the total # of secondary turns must be increa sed by the factor 4/3; the feedback coil must then have 1/4 of the # of turns of EACH secondary in this NEW secondary circuit. Given the condition in which the feedback coil perfectly cancels all the residual secondary flux through the center leg of the core, the power drawn from the output will be nearly independent of the primary input power. The primary input will be the m agnetizing power, and nothing more. The output power will have a negligible phase angle (due to the leakage inductance) if the mu of the core (as seen by the primary) is at least 100. In practice, it is best if the feedback winding is short a turn or tw o, thereby preventing series inductance in the output at the cost of a small increase in input power. A parallel resonant primary circuit allows for great input power reduction while ensuring voltage stability and linear operation under varying output lo ads. The UDT can be used without a resonant primary circuit for the amplification of any time-varying signal. The main flaws of the UDT are the (normally) low primary mu, and the very long secondary wire required to ensure isolation of the input from the o utput. A single or double stack of E-I laminations seem to provide the optimum core geometry, all factors considered. At high frequencies it becomes practical to use ferrite cores with "center leg circuit" reluctances less than their "outer leg circuit" reluctances, because the volts/turn of each winding can be made very high. Conventional transformer design techniques should be used once the basic UDT topology has been determined. I [Paul Jensen] have invented and developed the UDT on my own, without benefit of any knowledge of other free-energy devices, if they exist, which utilize the basic principles of UDT operation. Please feel free to use this information as you desire. However, I hope no one will attempt to patent and control this type of transformer. The time on planet Earth is 15 minutes before midnight; there is no time left to waste. Free-energy technology is nor meant to be controlled by vain and greedy parasite s who wish to use a gift from God to exploit their fellow man. Free-energy technology represents a spiritual transition of the Human Race. Free-Energy is not meant to be owned, PERIOD! UDT EQUATIONS # of Turns = N V(primary)/ N(primary) = V(feedback) / N(feedback) = V(secondary) / N(secondary)/2 V(output) / V(primary) = a a * N(primary) = (N(secondary)/2) -- N(feedback) N(feedback) = [N(secondary/2][(R(outer circuit) / R(outer circuit) + R(center circuit)] R = reluctance = 1/mu*A X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 01:14:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 01:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 03:05:53 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: free energy from compost References: <199706150045.CAA21385@mail.bbtt.de> Resent-Message-ID: <"uHCKk.0.RF6.2Hwep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3823 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Stefan and all! With regard to energy from compost.....David Oates, the developer of Reverse Speech, used to live about 6 blocks from my house. He is originally from Australia and told me he knew a fellow down there who was making the electricity for lighting his farm f rom a compost bed. The details were something on the order of an 8 foot X 10 foot pit, about 6 feet deep, filled with either pig or chicken manure. An iron post was installed at each end of the pit, being firmly immersed in the manure with the top stick ing out. He connected a cable to each of the iron rods which led to the load bank. I asked David if he could get more details about this, but he said it was a long time ago and it would take some doing. That was the last I heard of it. I made sure he was not referring to the collection and combustion of methane gas and he insisted there was an electrical current between the two posts. I also asked him if there were any chance the metal poles could have been dissimilar metals, and he sa id to the best of his knowledge, they were both iron. Seems like a simple enough experiment that could be done on a small basis, say a 2 X 3 foot pit, one foot deep?? Just thought I'd add this to the mix......seeya! -- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, Republic of Texas - 75187 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 07:23:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 07:22:26 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: ben@clubelite.com (Ben Tammetta) To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:22:15 +0000 Subject: Re: Not all balls are created equal Reply-to: tammetta@mindspring.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"nYmjl1.0.iQ5.Yg_ep"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8302 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hello, > Tim D Vaughan wrote: > > > > I found something interesting. I have a ramp that will work with one > > ball > > but not another of the same size and manufacture. One ball shoots over > > the ramp, the other does not even make it all the way up the ramp. > > > > They are both clean new 5/8 inch ball bearings with no visible defects > > from > > the same box that I just bought from the bearing store. > > > > You might try several different balls to compare > > how they behave. > > > > Tim Vaughan > > Hi Tim, > > You have been busy, I have observed the same effect. I "Select" my > balls for min residual magnetism. > > -- > Best Regards, > Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ I had noticed the same thing.... and even stranger..... also noticed that one ball would gradually make it higher and higher up the ramp each time i placed it at the start... until finally it went over.... (between 5-7 times) and if i'm not mistaken it s eemed to have repeat the same process. Once we get working SMOTs will some of these strange occurances come into play to negate any OU effects we now observe? Ben ben@clubelite.com ###################### # Ben Tammetta # # ben@clubelite.com # ###################### X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 14:49:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:48:59 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Tim Vaughn" , "Free Energy" Subject: The Neutral Zone and the UDT Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:49:29 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"dSu_23.0.c_7.AD6fp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3833 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Folks! Here are some preliminary comments on the UDT piece THE NEUTRAL ZONE, THE UDT, AND THE GARY MOTOR Thr first thing that comes to mind when I look at the UDT is the presence of so-called "cancelling" magnetic fields in the two secondaries. My preliminary analysis is going to concentrate on them and not on the "feedback winding". My first assumption i s that the feedback winding is an enhancement device, and that careful measurements will show anomalies even in the simple gapped E-I core without the feedback coil. The "outer leg circuit" essentially consists of a single core with coils generating opposing fields. The gap on the central projection of the E-core primary is located precisely where the opposed fields in the I-core secondary are weakest. This location in the secondary corresponds exactly to the neutral line in the Gary devices. The transformer laminations take the place of the piece of soft iron in Gary's first demonstration with the small nail. (It's assumed that you've looked at the Gary Motor material that Tim put up on the web). There seem to be two schools of thought on what happens when magnetic fields are opposed. One school says that fields essentially cancel, which in my simple-minded way tells me that they are now a scalar sum appearing as a vector zero, a la the Whitta ker papers. The other school, which intuitively seems true to me, is that fields simply compress in a given space, and do not cancel. Both schools may be correct, depending on the degree of coupling between the two opposing fields, and the presence of a magnetic material. I seem to remember Bob Shannon saying something along the lines of "the fields don't cancel unless they occupy t he same space" -- correct me if I'm wrong, Bob. The situation between the opposing fields in space and in a magnetic material are obviously quite different. In space the fields compress infinitely and never become a scalar summation. In a magnetic material they appear to cancel, because of the pro babilistic nature of the spin orientations. Consider the situation of a single sheet of atoms of magnetic material at the exact midpoint between two opposite fields. Each atom can have only one spin orientation. The presence of the fields permits only two possible spin orientations. Because of the probabilistic nature of the spin oientations, half the atoms will have one spin and half the other. The fields still exist but they are randomized on an atomic level. On the other hand there is a tendency for neighboring atoms to induce one state or the other so that they form domains even in the single sheet. This would be similar to the cohering of fluctuation energy that Tim talks about. I would think that there might to be a high-frequency oscillation between the two orientations under certain conditions, probably in single magnetic crystals. This might be the source of energy in these devices, because obviously a flipping magnetic field is going to generate a voltage, but it seems too small to account for the effects observ Anybody with more knowledge of magnetics and quantum theory can correct me on the above. The main point here is that within a magnetic material fields can FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES cancel, and so it is possible to create a voltage in a secondary and at the same time cancel the magnetic field before it loads the primary. The UDT seems to be one possible solid-state realization of the principles of the Gary motor. Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 14:49:46 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:49:03 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Fw: The Neutral Zone and the UDT Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:49:34 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"sf7w11.0.H.ED6fp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3834 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com ---------- > Hi Folks! > > Here are some preliminary comments on the UDT piece > > THE NEUTRAL ZONE, THE UDT, AND THE GARY MOTOR > > Thr first thing that comes to mind when I look at the UDT is the presence > of so-called "cancelling" magnetic fields in the two secondaries. My > preliminary analysis is going to concentrate on them and not on the > "feedback winding". My first assumption is that the feedback winding is an > enhancement device, and that careful measurements will show anomalies even > in the simple gapped E-I core without the feedback coil. > The "outer leg circuit" essentially consists of a single core with coils > generating opposing fields. The gap on the primary is located precisely > where the opposed fields are weakest. This is a sort of transformer version of the > Gary neutral line, the laminations taking the place of the piece of soft iron in > Gary's first demonstration with the small nail. > There seem to be two schools of thought on what happens when magnetic > fields are opposed. One school says that fields essentially cancel, which > in my simple-minded way tells me that they are now a scalar sum appearing > as a vector zero, a la the Whittaker papers. The other school, which > intuitively seems true to me, is that fields simply compress in a given > space, and do not cancel. > Both schools may be correct, depending on the degree of coupling between > the two opposing fields, and the presence of a magnetic material. I seem to > remember Bob Shannon saying something along the lines of "the fields don't > cancel unless they occupy the same space" -- correct me if I'm wrong, Bob. > The situation between the opposing fields in space and in a magnetic > material are obviously quite different. In space the fields coompress > infinitely and never become a scalar summation. In a magnetic material > they appear to do so, because of the probabilistic nature of the spin > orientations. > Consider the situation of a single sheet of atoms of magnetic material > at the exact midpoint between two opposite fields. Each atom can have only > one spin orientation. The presence of the fields permits only two possible > spin orientations. Because of the probabilistic nature of the spin > oientations, half the atoms will have one spin and half the other. The > fields still exist but they are randomized on an atomic level. On the > other hand there is a tendency for neighboring atoms to induce one state or > the other so that they form domains even in the single sheet. This would be > similar to the cohering of fluctuation energy that Tim talks about. I > would think that there might to be a high-frequency oscillation between the > two orientations under certain conditions, probably in single magnetic > crystals. This might be the source of energy in these devices, because > obviously a flipping magnetic field is going to generate a voltage, but it > seems too small to account for the effects observed. > What I'm most interested here is the difference in behavior of the > magnetic field at different points in the secondaries. Away from the gap, > the two secondaries each have varying magnetic fields generating voltages > in the normal fashion. Near the gap the fields "cancel". > > > (again jump on me if I'm wrong you magnetism experts and quantum people, > just dont make the maths too heavy) > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 16:17:55 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:17:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 08:36:46 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT test report form Resent-Message-ID: <"zqOFx3.0.JX.zV7fp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3836 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I am setting up another page showing various SMOT test results. The idea is to spread the information and test results around and have a central location for SMOT data. If you have built a SMOT ramp, would you please fill in the following form : If you have built multiple / linked ramps, use multiple reports. 1) Magnet Array Height ........... _______________ 2) Magnet Array Width ............ _______________ 3) Magnet Array Length ........... _______________ 4) Magnet Material ............... _______________ 5) Backing Strip Height .......... _______________ 6) Backing Strip Width ........... _______________ 7) Backing Strip Length .......... _______________ 8) Ramp Lift ..................... _______________ 9) Ramp Width (Inside) ........... _______________ 10) Ramp Length ................... _______________ 11) Ramp Material ................. _______________ 12) Ramp top exit radius .......... _______________ 13) Ramp Bottom exit radius ....... _______________ 14) Ball Size ..................... _______________ 15) Ball Material ................. _______________ 16) Ball Finish ................... _______________ 17) Bottom Spacing ................ _______________ 18) Top Spacing ................... _______________ 19) Magnet Array Overhang ......... _______________ (Array Top to End of Ramp) 20) If a Linked Report, Ramp # .... _______________ 21) Best Lift Achieved ............ _______________ (Exit-entry hieght) 22) Best Dropaway Achieved ........ _______________ (How far ball must go down to drop) 23) Best Rollaway PE Energy ....... _______________ (21-22) 24) Level Rollaway Achieved ....... _______________ 25) Higher Rollaway Achieved ...... _______________ 26) How much higher ............... _______________ 27) Rollaround Achieved ........... _______________ 28) Best Circuits Achieved ........ _______________ 29) Best Time Achieved ............ _______________ 30) Date (dd/mm/yy) ............... _______________ 31) Your Name ..................... _______________ (Optional) 32) Comments : Once I get a few in, I will start to put the results up on my web site. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 16:09:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:07:47 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: sorry about repeats Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:09:22 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"XQDyI3.0.n3.2N7fp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3835 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi folks, Accidently sent two versions of the commentaries on the UDT. Ignore the ones starting "FWD" Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 01:50:44 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 01:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:56:11 -0700 From: "Glenville T. Sawyer" Reply-To: gsawyer@dove.net.au Organization: Making a "CONCERTed EFFort" - Lighting, Theatre, Concerts, Special Events and effects. To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: free energy from compost References: <199706150045.CAA21385@mail.bbtt.de> <33A3BE81.5847@keelynet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"quKLz.0.s1.Xpwep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3824 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I have not had time to check this out fully .. but found the following URL .. http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/ae198/ SolarHouse.html I think they will mainly want to SELL you something , but will take a look when I next log on ( only get 2 hours a day here ). Seeya again soon. Glenville. -- Glenville T. Sawyer (VK5ZCF) mailto:gsawyer@dove.net.au Home-site http://dove.net.au/~gsawyer - please visit Lighting, Concerts, Special Events & Extra Special Effects X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 18:26:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 18:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:24:54 -0400 X-Sender: richarda@mailhub.icx.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: richarda@icx.net (Richard Austin) Subject: Re: The "Unidirectional Transformer" Article Resent-Message-ID: <"Vh15r1.0.I-.cO9fp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3837 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com A drawing and photo of such a device would be helpful for those of us trying to replicate it. Has this been tested by anyone? Richard Austin -- email: richarda@icx.net -- radio: KG7SU Check out the Institute for Planetary Renewal at http://user.icx.net/~richarda X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 19:04:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 19:04:11 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:26:39 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: RMOD References: Resent-Message-ID: <"fqnkg2.0.2F7.My9fp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3838 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Steve Ekwall wrote: > > Paul, > I'm trying to send you my first '.attached-email'gif ever, if it comes > through, please let me know... I visited you home page (it's really NICE) > and saw your RMOD or Last Photo (this date). I'd tried a similar desk top > experiemt with small mags and n-gauge track... it really looked like it > wanted to go (see gif S/N)!! Your CORE *is* different in set up, I will > try that next.. should know by tomorrow or so. > These (smot's) are great.. I lucked out and got BIG roll-a-way first > thing!! > - lucky me :) ... I thought of 'Nautilas shell' shaped Amplifiers and Rail > Guns right of the bat!.. I'll repost this to freenrg-l if you like.. > stuck here with a 4086 win.BMP files converted by cshow.. so don't know if > it'll be viewable to you. [no browser/no disk space (sigh)] > ------------- > My most noted comment, besides you going (and ahead of me) in my thought > direction on RMOD is it 'appears Backwards' in almost every thing I try! > ---------------- > Greg mentioned that if it were going to be OU it would be 'inverted'. > fun stuff if you havn't built one yet. > > p.s. your Page LOOKS & Came across Great to mile-high Denver Colorado/usa > i need to update this !#%$ system... ahh $$.. :) > > se > ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ > -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 > ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 > ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX > > heck, i'll save band-width & just add freenrg-l now then I can see for > myself... I like your "pendleum armed - self staring idea".. 2nd to tinker > with (have you thought about a third arm (one always in the track?). > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > [Image] Hi Steve, No image at this end. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 20:35:46 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:00:57 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: newman-l@emachine.com, neotech@xbn.shore.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Page swap Resent-Message-ID: <"tDBG53.0.hb5.7IBfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3839 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Check out the latest batch of SMOT links on my web site. If yours is not there, let me know and I will update. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 21:24:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:24:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: The "Unidirectional Transformer" Article Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:24:49 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"UVeqm3.0.iX.m_Bfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3840 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Richard and all, Richard says: > A drawing and photo of such a device would be helpful for those of us > trying to replicate it. Yes, you're right. I was too lazy to make an ascii graphic and I'm still working on getting my new scanner working. Here's an ascii drawing, hopefully it'll print ok: _____________________________________ I I I I - Core I I_____________________________________I ______ _______ I I ________ I I I S1 I________i P I________I S2 I I I I E-core I I_____________________________________I I have the I- and E- cores separated when they are actually in contact. Proportions are not accurate; the gap between P and the I-core is very narrow. Seen from the top, the secondary winding goes around S1, then forms the feedback coil at the top of P, then goes around S2, all in series. The primary winding is around the lo wer part of P. Another way of thinking about is in terms of the magnetic circuits formed. There are four: 1) One clockwise around the perimeter. 2) One counterclockwise around the perimeter. These two "cancel". 3) One from S1 across the gap and through P. 4) One from S2 across the gap and through P. These two are purported to be cancelled by the feedback coil. > Has this been tested by anyone? No, there's never been a word about it anywhere that I've seen. Unfortunately Jensen didn't include any test results, although he clearly made a model that he considered to be working (means little, I know). I reprinted the article because I could find no flaws in the theory (and would like to hear those if they exist because that would correct my understanding of magnetic theory) and because it reflected themes about the neutral line and cancelling fields which have been discussed often on the list. Truth be told, I enjoyed the clarity and professionalism of the writ ing as much as anything else. I am attempting to find the inventor. If anybody has heard anything about this device let me know. Testing should not be difficult, if ferrite cores are used so that the gap distance doesn't have to be so critical. I would suggest making AC power measurements withonly the gapped core arrangement without the feedback coil first, then include the feedbac k coil. Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 21:47:44 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:48:03 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Neutral Zone and the UDT Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 04:46:24 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199706152149.OAA00100@mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"lQlsN.0.PR1._LCfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3841 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:49:29 -0700, Fred Epps wrote: [snip] > There seem to be two schools of thought on what happens when magnetic >fields are opposed. One school says that fields essentially cancel, which >in my simple-minded way tells me that they are now a scalar sum appearing >as a vector zero, a la the Whittaker papers. The other school, which >intuitively seems true to me, is that fields simply compress in a given >space, and do not cancel. A scalar by definition has magnitude, but not direction. A Good example of this is temperature. I think pressure is another. Now suppose that magnetic fields have both magnitude and direction (i.e. they are vector quantities). When two such vectors are in opposition, the directional components add to zero, but the magnitudes don't. It would appear that what is left is a scalar quantity. Like pressing your hands together. You generate pressure between them, but there is no motion, hence no direction, and no vector quantity. The directional force vectors cancel out. What remains is a scalar with a magnitude dependant upon the magnitudes of the original force vectors. This is not the same thing as having no forces at all! Where this leads to IMO is that both schools are essentially saying the same thing. It is just using different words to describe the same phenomenon. > Both schools may be correct, depending on the degree of coupling between >the two opposing fields, and the presence of a magnetic material. I seem to I don't think the presence or absence of magnetic material has anything to do with whether or not a vector sum (or cancelling if you wish) occurs. It does however influence the magnitude of the resulting scalar quantity. IOW it acts as a multiplier (incre ases the pressure - or magnitude). [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 22:07:07 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:05:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ddameron@earthlink.net (Unverified) To: freenrg-L@eskimo.com From: Dave Dameron Subject: Blinky LED project, homopolar generators Resent-Message-ID: <"U8k7f.0.CQ2.qdCfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3844 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Can anyone tell me where the alternative energy "Blinky LED" project is located. It used a 9 volt battery to start. I looked at eskimo.com. Please send your response directly by email to me. When I see classical diagrams for homopolar generators, the magnetic poles cover only a portion of the rotating disk.Would not the portions of the disk not in the magnetic field short out any voltage generated? I know if you place a spimming copper di sk between the poles of a magnet, it is braked, so a retarding torque is produced. This is how spinning disk wattmeters are regulated. I have also seen homopolar disks cut in a spiral, has anyone tried a pancake coil instead (1 layer spiral)? In these 2 c ases, would't the current be limited to a tangential component, producing little results? Thanks again. Dave X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 16:55:02 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 16:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:29:43 +1200 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Paul Callender Subject: Re: Pendulum design SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"E6WC92.0.KZ.jwoep"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3815 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Butch, >For what it's worth, >I am going to pursue a pendulum design of the SMOT, if it shows overunity, I >will build vacuum chamber with window. (talk about low friction) >Butch LaFonte Have a look at my web page with my pendulum design RMOD. It's at http://www.es.co.nz/~klicco/home.htm . Tell me what you think. Thanks, ................... Paul Callender Email: klicco@es.co.nz Christchurch 5, New Zealand X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 23:28:25 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:28:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: The Neutral Zone and the UDT Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:28:30 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"_TOA71.0.CU4.OqDfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3846 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com ---------- Hi Robin, Bob, and all! Sorry my ascii picutre of the UDT didn't turn out, I'll try again later. Robin says: > A scalar by definition has magnitude, but not direction. A Good > example of this is temperature. I think pressure is another. > Now suppose that magnetic fields have both magnitude and direction > (i.e. they are vector quantities). When two such vectors are in > opposition, the directional components add to zero, but the magnitudes > don't. It would appear that what is left is a scalar quantity. > Like pressing your hands together. You generate pressure between them, > but there is no motion, hence no direction, and no vector quantity. > The directional force vectors cancel out. What remains is a scalar > with a magnitude dependant upon the magnitudes of the original force > vectors. This is not the same thing as having no forces at all! Thanks for the clear explanation of scalars. Would the balancing centripetal and "centrifugal" forces in a rock spinning around a string also qualify as pure scalar quantities? > I don't think the presence or absence of magnetic material has > anything to do with whether or not a vector sum (or cancelling if you > wish) occurs. It does however influence the magnitude of the resulting > scalar quantity. IOW it acts as a multiplier (increases the pressure - > or magnitude). What about the orientation of those atoms that happen to have exactly equal forces acting on them? Wouldn't they flip back and forth in the way I described because of random thermal fluctuations? I said: > obviously a flipping magnetic field is going to generate a voltage, but it > seems too small to account for the effects observed Bob said: Take a look at the Barkhausen effect battery varient of the scalar detector design on Bill's web site. It's right up this general ally I was thinking vaguely of this while writing. There is a lot to assimilate in all this. I'm getting more hopped up about Tim's idea of a "latching mechanism' on the domain (?) level. Fred says: > The main point here is that within a magnetic material fields can FOR > ALL > PRACTICAL PURPOSES cancel, and so it is possible to create a voltage > in a secondary and at the same time cancel the magnetic field before it > loads > the primary. Bob: I disagree. I wound two opposing coils on a single ferrite torus, with the two coils connected in series. The idea was that eack coil would cancel the flux of the other, yeilding a scalar product. What actually happens is quite different. The flux from each coil simply will not be cancelled to the slightest degree. Two magnetic flux 'arcs' formed across the full inside diameter of the torus. F: I can see that. The flux would rather take the path across the free space than attempt to flow through the FAR HIGHER reluctance of the core within the opposing coil. Flux will of course seek the path of least reluctance, and that is not the path through the core of the opposing coil. It seems like this very property might be used to guide the secondary magnetic field away from interacting with the primary.The gap in the UDT is in the part of the secondary that would tend to have the highest reluctance because of the opposing fields. Probably half-baked.. In response to my question about whether the Jensen device had ever been tested, Bob said: As I recall, the device is another example of claims that evaporated in the light of AC power factors, and the problems of simply multiplying the current and voltages recorded by multimeters. I agree that this is a major fallacy in many tests. There is that faint chance that he did those tests properly, since the rest of the article shows no ignorance, so I am going to pursue contact with him. This device interests me because it seems to me th at if the SMOT and similar devices work then a solid-state (transformer-type) device could not be far away. The neutral line phenomena is somewhat similar to the boundary between two bucking fields. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 23:14:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:31:35 +0400 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: otecnor@emirates.net.ae (otecnor) Subject: Re: The "Unidirectional Transformer" Article Resent-Message-ID: <"_Wh3B.0.3B4.saDfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3845 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, The UDT has been described sometime last year in "Fulcrum" The Science Journal of The University Of Science & Philosophy, (science@pobox.com ),They may be able to give you some data regarding the Inventor..there were no test datas along with the article. With Best Wishes >I am attempting to find the inventor. If anybody has heard anything about >this device let me know. FRANCK ROUSSEL http://www.infoemirates.com/otecnor otecnor@emirates.net.ae Tel: -- 971 4 341 335 Fax: -- 971 4 341 271 Po box 4613 Dubai United Arab Emirates Time: GMT + 4 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 21:50:09 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:49:36 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:47:17 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Neutral Zone and the UDT References: <199706152149.OAA00100@mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"qX6VR.0.Xo7.UNCfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3842 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > There seem to be two schools of thought on what happens when magnetic > fields are opposed. One school says that fields essentially cancel, which > in my simple-minded way tells me that they are now a scalar sum appearing > as a vector zero, a la the Whittaker papers. The other school, which > intuitively seems true to me, is that fields simply compress in a given > space, and do not cancel. There is also a school of thought that both sets of behavior happen under differing conditions. > Both schools may be correct, depending on the degree of coupling between > the two opposing fields, and the presence of a magnetic material. I seem to > remember Bob Shannon saying something along the lines of "the fields don't > cancel unless they occupy the same space" -- correct me if I'm wrong, Bob. That would better describe the coils than their fields. Note the behavior of a well made bifilar coil as opposed to that of the two coil torus described a bit later in this post. > The situation between the opposing fields in space and in a magnetic > material are obviously quite different. In space the fields compress > infinitely and never become a scalar summation. In a magnetic material > they appear to cancel, because of the probabilistic nature of the spin > orientations. Actually, in a well constructed bifilar coil, the net inductance can be very low, very very near zero. In this case, the fields are essentially totally suppressed. This works for air core coils, so the presence of a magnetic material (other than free space) is not mandatory. > Consider the situation of a single sheet of atoms of magnetic material > at the exact midpoint between two opposite fields. Each atom can have only > one spin orientation. The presence of the fields permits only two possible > spin orientations. Because of the probabilistic nature of the spin > oientations, half the atoms will have one spin and half the other. The > fields still exist but they are randomized on an atomic level. On the > other hand there is a tendency for neighboring atoms to induce one state or > the other so that they form domains even in the single sheet. This would be > similar to the cohering of fluctuation energy that Tim talks about. I > would think that there might to be a high-frequency oscillation between the > two orientations under certain conditions, probably in single magnetic > crystals. This might be the source of energy in these devices, because > obviously a flipping magnetic field is going to generate a voltage, but it > seems too small to account for the effects observ > Anybody with more knowledge of magnetics and quantum theory can correct > me on > the above. Take a look at the Barkhausen effect battery varient of the scalar detector design on Bill's web site. It's right up this general ally. > The main point here is that within a magnetic material fields can FOR > ALL > PRACTICAL PURPOSES cancel, and so it is possible to create a voltage > in a secondary and at the same time cancel the magnetic field before it > loads > the primary. I disagree. I would two opposing coils on a single ferrite torus, with the two coils connected in series. The idea was that eack coil would cancel the flux of the other, yeilding a scalar product. What actually happens is quite different. The flux from each coil simply will not be cancelled to the slightest degree. Two magnetic flux 'arcs' formed across the full inside diameter of the torus. The flux would rather take the path across the free space than attempt to flow through the FAR HIGHER reluctance of the core within the opposing coil. Flux will of course seek the path of least reluctance, and that is not the path through the core of the opposing coil. Experiance teaches that in this case, within a magnetic materal flux DOES NOT cancel. (and there is no resulting scalar product) > The UDT seems to be one possible solid-state realization of the > principles > of the Gary motor. I think you may find that actual testing of the UDT shows that the power factor of the output has a significant impact on the claims. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 22:01:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:01:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:54:13 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The "Unidirectional Transformer" Article References: <199706160424.VAA13709@mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"b_aws2.0.nM.fYCfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3843 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > > Has this been tested by anyone? > > No, there's never been a word about it anywhere that I've seen. I recall a discussion of the UDT device quite some time ago, and I cannot recall exactly where I read this exchange. > Unfortunately Jensen didn't include any test results, although he clearly > made a model that he considered to be working (means little, I know). I > reprinted the article because I could find no flaws in the theory (and > would like to hear those if they exist because that would correct my > understanding of magnetic theory) and because it reflected themes about the > neutral line and cancelling fields which have been discussed often on the > list. Truth be told, I enjoyed the clarity and professionalism of the > writing as much as anything else. > > I am attempting to find the inventor. If anybody has heard anything about > this device let me know. As I recall, the device is another example of claims that evaporated in the light of AC power factors, and the problems of simply multiplying the current and voltages recorded by multimeters. > Testing should not be difficult, if ferrite cores are used so that the gap > distance doesn't have to be so critical. I would suggest making AC power > measurements withonly the gapped core arrangement without the feedback coil > first, then include the feedback coil. > > Fred Always check the AC power factor, remember the MRA and so many other examples! X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 01:44:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 01:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 17:28:30 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Reporting via my Web Site Resent-Message-ID: <"xsYBn1.0.Im6.eoFfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3847 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Thanks to Glen Sawyer (gsawyer@dove.net.au) I how have a Java Based Report form on my Web Site. It is now even easier to report your SMOT results. DO IT NOW! Thanks Glen. The InterNet rules!!!!!!! Remember to post me your SMOT links so I can update my SMOT Site. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 06:34:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 06:31:15 -0700 From: "John Steck" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 08:24:24 -0500 References: <19970614093235.AAA2169@LOCALNAME> <33A320A0.596B@keelynet.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Retro TOMI Resent-Message-ID: <"M-8nO2.0.gE6.Y0Kfp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8315 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Jun 14, 3:53pm, Jerry wrote: > A shame there are so many who still refuse to build one, rather wanting > ever more details, nitpicking the posts or commenting on why it won't or > can't work.....that seems to be about 70% to 90% of the mail I see, so it > is quickly deleted. Glad I'm not the only one thinking that. Get your fingers dirty or shut up already. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 15:56:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:53:24 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex , Jerry Subject: Re: Retro TOMI Resent-Message-ID: <"NuFHu3.0.c73.BDSfp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8328 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Received: from [192.48.96.7] by rainbow.verisoft.com.tr (AIX 4.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA16380; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 19:16:24 +0400 Received: from mx2.eskimo.com by relay2.UU.NET with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mx2.eskimo.com [204.122.16.49]) id QQctxp18187; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 12:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) id JAA05468; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 09:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 09:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <33A26B46.498D265 4@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 13:58:30 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b4 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Retro TOMI X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <19970614093235.AAA2169@LOCALNAME> <33A28C9C.47A9@keelynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-Id: <"cZxKw2.0.IL1.2Aiep"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8269 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jerry wrote: > > Gnorts Vorts! > > Thought with all the flutter about Greg Watsons SMOT, it might be > interesting to compare to the TOMI. I built it and it worked, the > principles are very similar. Chuck Hendersons daughter built one > and entered it in the Science Fair, winning first prize.....check out; > Hi Jerry, Could you give more construction details and self powering criteria (e.g. starting and ending levels and the roll away conditions) on the device that you build. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 08:55:20 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 08:53:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:52:52 -0400 X-Sender: richarda@mailhub.icx.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: richarda@icx.net (Richard Austin) Subject: Re: The "Unidirectional Transformer" Article Resent-Message-ID: <"4lnf81.0.BA4.Y5Mfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3848 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com The ASCII drawing did not come out for me. If you drew it with a graphics program and saved as a gif file you wouldn't have to scan it. >Hi Richard and all, > >Richard says: >> A drawing and photo of such a device would be helpful for those of us >> trying to replicate it. > >Yes, you're right. I was too lazy to make an ascii graphic and I'm still >working on getting my new scanner working. >Here's an ascii drawing, hopefully it'll print ok: > > > > >_____________________________________ > I > I > I I - >Core I > >I_____________________________________I > ______ > _______ > I I >________ I I > I S1 I________i P >I________I S2 I > I > I > I >E-core I > >I_____________________________________I > >I have the I- and E- cores separated when they are actually in contact. >Proportions are not accurate; the gap between P and the I-core is very >narrow. Seen from the top, the secondary winding goes around S1, then forms >the feedback coil at the top of P, then goes around S2, all in series. The >primary winding is around the lower part of P. >Another way of thinking about is in terms of the magnetic circuits formed. >There are four: >1) One clockwise around the perimeter. >2) One counterclockwise around the perimeter. >These two "cancel". >3) One from S1 across the gap and through P. >4) One from S2 across the gap and through P. >These two are purported to be cancelled by the feedback coil. > >> Has this been tested by anyone? > >No, there's never been a word about it anywhere that I've seen. >Unfortunately Jensen didn't include any test results, although he clearly >made a model that he considered to be working (means little, I know). I >reprinted the article because I could find no flaws in the theory (and >would like to hear those if they exist because that would correct my >understanding of magnetic theory) and because it reflected themes about the >neutral line and cancelling fields which have been discussed often on the >list. Truth be told, I enjoyed the clarity and professionalism of the >writing as much as anything else. > >I am attempting to find the inventor. If anybody has heard anything about >this device let me know. > >Testing should not be difficult, if ferrite cores are used so that the gap >distance doesn't have to be so critical. I would suggest making AC power >measurements withonly the gapped core arrangement without the feedback coil >first, then include the feedback coil. > >Fred > Richard Austin -- email: richarda@icx.net -- radio: KG7SU Check out the Institute for Planetary Renewal at http://user.icx.net/~richarda X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 10:11:20 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:05:22 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: The "Unidirectional Transformer" Article Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:06:15 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"yQ7bn2.0.h27.H9Nfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3849 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Richard, > > The ASCII drawing did not come out for me. > If you drew it with a graphics program and saved as a gif file you wouldn't > have to scan it. > Thanks for the tip. I got obsessed with getting my new scanner to work, forgot about that... Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 12:00:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:56:03 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 12:50:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: RON BRENNEN Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Earth batteries Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"CabQK.0.uo3.2nOfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3850 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ron: What are earth batteries and has anyone been successful in producing useful energy from them? Is there a web site with further practical info? _________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office ________________________________________________________ __________________ On Sat, 14 Jun 1997, RON BRENNEN wrote: > Hi folks: > Has anyone done any experimenting with earth batteries? > I understand impressive amounts of over unity energy can > be gotten. > > Ron Brennen > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 15:59:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:23:04 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Reports ............. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"x6ZoK.0.-R3.UJSfp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8329 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Come on GUYS, do some reporting. Its SIMPLE. Achieve something for ALL the effort you have put into the SMOTS. When I get 10 reports up, I will release the SMOT Mark II plans. The reports ARE IMPORTANT if these tests are to be taken seriously. The first report is up. Have a look and REPORT. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 02:07:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 02:02:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Hinman, Jeffrey M" To: "'freenrg-L@eskimo.com'" Subject: Permanent Magnet Motor Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:27:32 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"EymEr2.0.uR.ZAbfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3865 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Did anyone look at the patent information that I passed along from a previous note about permanent magnet motors and a patent similar to the SMOT? Would anyone like me to send an email copy of the patent text through this distribution list? Keep up the work on the SMOT testing. Greg Watson - do you still have a ramp achieving roll-around? If so, what is the status to date? Jeff Hinman Seattle, WA X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 18:20:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:04:31 -0700 (PDT) From: tekatcha@pop.ghbbs.com (Anthony Tekatch) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 20:41:48 -0400 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: something new : drawing(s) Resent-Message-ID: <"vf4w82.0.Kg1.OAUfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3853 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >>Wow, that seems like a long time. I was able to power an LCD watch for >>about two months with a potatoe ... the potatoe dried up. I'm sure that if >>you kept the fruit/vegetable/compost hydrated that you could extend the >>life of the battery. >>Do you have questions about how to connect the containers? If so then I >>can easily draw wiring diagram for you. >In my humble opinion, I think that a wiring diagram would be interesting >to all the readers of the list. OK, Here is a crude ASCII drawing showing two potatoes, an LCD watch, 2 copper wires and 2 Galvanized wires. I have a 7K zipped BMP file that I can send personally to anyone that wants a better picture (I didn't want to clog up the mailing list with that huge file). GGGGGG LCD CCCCCC G C G CCCCCGGGGGG C G C G C PPPGPPCPPP PPPGPPCPPP PPPGPPCPPP PPPGPPCPPP PPPGPPCPPP PPPGPPCPPP PPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPP LCD=Liquid Crystal Watch P=Potatoe G=Galvanized fence wire C=Copper wire Anthony Tekatch tekatcha@pop.ghbbs.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 18:40:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:30:50 -0400 From: B25B@LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: B25B@LCIA.COM To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Earth batteries Resent-Message-ID: <"WIMfc1.0.TJ2.OVUfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3854 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Jorg: Earth batteries take energy from the earth. They are relatively easy to construct. I am considering making one, and am looking for some one who has had some experience with them. I am not aware of any web sites with any info on them. I became aware of them from an article on them in the third quarter, 1995 issue of Borderlands Mag. The article is about Nathan Stubblefield who offered to build a power plant for the entire town, using them, so I assume they are quite powerful suppliers of free energy. ______________________________________________________________________ On Monday 16 Jun 1997 Jorg Ostrowski wrote: Ron: What are earth batteries and has anyone been successful in producing useful energy from them? Is there a web site with further practical info? X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 14:05:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:03:31 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:52:08 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Thermomagnetism Resent-Message-ID: <"K9iw22.0.Ds7.Xklfp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8365 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Frederick - > Kinda helps to have a game plan before you start > cutting steel. That's how Greg got the ball rolling, > so to speak. On the other hand if you knew how they > made sausages you'd probably never touch the stuff. > :-) LOL! Yeah, if I knew how Stark Gibbering Bonkers all that adjustment hassle was going to make me with the conventional Watson ramps, I probably never would have tried it! I got two ramps to link, but with no altitude gain. It's hard! Since then, I've been playing with Blanton arrays on straight pieces of track. I've had some interesting results, and have some apparent decent altitude gains now I'm trying to solidify and see what kind of a level rollaway I can get. I'll post results and details when I get a solid replicable result. Thanks for posting the summary of the various magnetic effects. I think it helps (?). :) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 20:14:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:13:54 -0700 From: "Wes Crosiar" To: Subject: Re: The "Unidirectional Transformer" Article Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:52:15 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"r6r003.0.367.n3Wfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3857 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I think Reed Huish of Zenergy may know if the UDT works or not. He may have done some research on this himself. I would contact him by private email, it may save you time and effort of building something that has already been proven to work or not to work . I know of one person who is better than most in the overunity field, who has tried and failed. His results were NOT overunity. THANKS WES X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 20:15:34 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:14:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Wes Crosiar" To: Subject: ANOTHER ONE FROM POPULAR ELECTRONICS Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:23:42 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"WlRFe.0.BQ6.W4Wfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3856 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I know that Popular Electronics does not do this on purpose:BUT Here is another [APRIL] issue that is to good to be true. This is out of april 1977 word for word. NEW SOLAR CELL Q. WHAT IS THE IN SITU SOLAR CELL PROCESS? A.That's the big breakthrough in solar cell design that drops the cost of solar power to $90 per Kilowatt. Actually, the in situ [latin for "in place"] technique is stunningly simple. Instead of refining the silicon and then building cells. You build the cells first and then refine the silicon. The process generates a cell from ordinary BEACH SAND [silicon dioxide]. after cell fabrication, the sand is chemically treated. The reaction drives off the oxygen, leaving an almost pure polycrystaline silicon. Most conveniently, any remaining impurities rearrange themselves to form uniformly doped series connected PN junctio ns through a process called Barfoot Layering. For each centimeter of cell thickenss, you typically get SEVERAL HUNDERD SERIES PN JUNCTIONS OR ABOUT 120 VOLTS DC UNDER NORMAL SUNLIGHT. The thickness of the panel determines the [voltage] and the area the [c urrent]. Typical current densitees are FOUR AMPERES PER SQUARE METER OF PANEL!!! YOU CAN EASILY BUILD A 100 WATT CELL. SIMPLY TAKE AN ORDINARY METAL COOKIE SHEET. COVER IT UNIFORMLY WITH A 1-CENTIMETER THICK LAYER OF BEACH SAND, COVER THAT WITH A PIECE OF SCREENING FOR THE FRONT COLLECTOR, ADD A PROTECTIVE GLASS COVER, AND CLAMP EVE RYTHING TOGETHER WITH LARGE RUBBER BANDS, BUNGEE CORDS OR SOMETHING SIMILAR. TO do your final chemical refinement carefuly remove the glass cover and spray the sand with two liters of 3.7 Dimethylpentadecon-2-ol Propionate, [available from larger organic chemical supply houses}. An ordinary window cleaner bottle makes a handy s pray source. Reaction time is four hours. Since the reaction is photoisentropic, it should be done under magenta safelight, such as that from a Portal Industries j-666 source. [I THINK THIS IS SHORT FOR BLACK LIGHT.] The front terminal is positive and the greatest output will be obtained when the panel is pointed due south at an elevation of your latitude plus ten degrees. A group of panels can, of course be wired in parallel for independent, on site power. THATS ALL FOLKS. I WAS TEMPTED TO KEEP THIS ONE TO MYSELF, BUT WHO KNOWS. MAYBE IT'S ONLY AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE. THANKS WES X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 20:56:55 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:56:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" , Subject: Re: Earth batteries Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:56:19 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"TwjdN3.0.kk.YhWfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3858 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi folks! > Jorg: Earth batteries take energy from the earth. They are relatively > easy to construct. I am considering making one, and am looking for some > one who has had some experience with them. I am not aware of any web > sites with any info on them. I became aware of them from an article on > them in the third quarter, 1995 issue of Borderlands Mag. The article > is about Nathan Stubblefield who offered to build a power plant for the > entire town, using them, so I assume they are quite powerful suppliers > of free energy. Yes, I read the VERY INTERESTING article about Stubblefield and tried to find a copy of the patent for his "earth battery". I strongly recommend getting the article and reading about a forgotten genius who easily surpassed Tesla in his achievements, and I don't make that claim lightly. I'd say it's too soon to say that all the things that have been called Earth Batteries take energy from the Earth. If that's how you want to define the term, then it works. Gerry Vassilatos, the author of the Stubblefield article, has compiled some large books about earth batteries and other interesting flukes of 19th cen. technology. I would love to get my hands on them, but can't afford. You can order them from Borderlands. Fred > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 21:16:42 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:35:40 +0400 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: otecnor@emirates.net.ae (otecnor) Subject: Mailing to JNL Resent-Message-ID: <"QNMR13.0.BP1.C-Wfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3859 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I Could not send email to Jean-Louis Naudin those last 5 days, all the mails came back with the following message: > The original message was received at Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:52:54 +0400 > from [194.170.124.155] > > ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- > (unrecoverable error) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to b.mx.aol.com.: > >>> MAIL From: > <<< 550 Access denied > ... while talking to b.mr.aol.com.: > >>> MAIL From: > <<< 550 Access denied > 554 ... Remote protocol error I even tryed to mail through his web site but the mail came back in the same way.... Does any one had similar problem ? With Thanks and Best Regards FRANCK ROUSSEL http://www.infoemirates.com/otecnor otecnor@emirates.net.ae Tel: -- 971 4 341 335 Fax: -- 971 4 341 271 Po box 4613 Dubai United Arab Emirates Time: GMT + 4 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 22:57:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:56:15 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 01:55:39 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re : Mailing to JNL Resent-Message-ID: <"kBihx1.0.Ex1.-RYfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3860 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 17/06/1997 06:54:08 , otecnor wrote : << Hi All, I Could not send email to Jean-Louis Naudin those last 5 days, all the mails came back with the following message: >> Hi All, If you can reach me through email (ISP problem ??), try with the freedback of my web site, or through my webpager at : http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 23:11:13 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:10:55 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 02:09:21 -0400 (EDT) To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au, freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re : SMOT Reports ............. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"iLMGL2.0.kg4.gfYfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3861 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 17/06/1997 02:02:54 , you wrote : << Hi All, Come on GUYS, do some reporting. Its SIMPLE. Achieve something for ALL the effort you have put into the SMOTS. The reports ARE IMPORTANT if these tests are to be taken seriously. The first report is up. Have a look and REPORT. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ >> Also, Greg, we wait always YOUR PHOTOS ( and/or your videos ) of your SMOT device WORKING in closed loop...... ( and many answers to my previous Emails.....) Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 23:11:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:10:56 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 02:09:21 -0400 (EDT) To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au, freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re : SMOT Reports ............. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"iLMGL2.0.tg4.gfYfp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8342 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 17/06/1997 02:02:54 , you wrote : << Hi All, Come on GUYS, do some reporting. Its SIMPLE. Achieve something for ALL the effort you have put into the SMOTS. The reports ARE IMPORTANT if these tests are to be taken seriously. The first report is up. Have a look and REPORT. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ >> Also, Greg, we wait always YOUR PHOTOS ( and/or your videos ) of your SMOT device WORKING in closed loop...... ( and many answers to my previous Emails.....) Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 00:42:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:40:53 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Re: UDT Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:05:50 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"oIaLK1.0.IQ5.3-Zfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3862 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Folks, Tommy Andersson says: The UDT POP claims that the fluxes cancel out in the centre leg of the UDT. However, orthodox magnetic theory says it is the magneto-motive forces of the opposing coils that cancel giving rise to no net flux flow - there has to be a net mmf in the centre leg for a flux to flow. I made one of these things using a ferrite core and tested it and confirmed that, once again, orthodoxy wins hands down. I found no O/U. The tricky bit is to accurately measure phase angles on the input to get an accurate power mea surements. Failure to do this can generally lead to misleading O/U results. I have no arguments with any of the people who have commented on the UDT. It seemed like an interesting idea at the time:-) Assuming for a moment (and I don't think this is a big assumption) that the SMOT and various other magnetic devices actually work, it seems like trying to find their purely electrical analogs would be an useful exercise. Of course, one could argue that yo u need to know how something works before you can do this, but I choose to ignore that truism in the interest of opening up new territory. This means I will probably be wrong a lot. It's OK, I'm getting used to it :-) Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 00:46:42 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:41:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: SMOT and Nonreciprocal processes Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:38:11 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"kc0oq3.0.Na6.r-Zfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3863 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Folks! Here's another set of quotes about nonreciprocal processes, from "Network Theory: An Introduction To Reciprocal And Nonreciprocal Circuits" by Carlin and Giordano, Prentice-Hall. Think about the SMOT and similar devices when you read these quotes. "A basic theorem which governs the behavior of linear reciprocal networks is the Lorentz reciprocity law. It may be deduced from the steady-state form of Maxwell's equations with time periodic fields, when the assumption is made that the network ports enter a system in which the medium (or mediums) is isotropic; that is, the constitutive equations for electric and magnetic fields are given in terms of scalar dielectric constant and scalar permeability. Physically, this means that at any point inside the medium the electric and magnetic properties are the same in all directions..." "If the n-port network contains an anisotropic medium with an asymmetric permeability tensor or dielectric tensor, then the Lorentz relations will not be satisfied, and the resulting structure is nonreciprocal. Examples of such media are ferrites or io nized plasmas with superimposed DC magnetic fields." I have already noted that all nonreciprocal processes must contain anisotropic but non-alternating magnetic fields. Nonreciprocal devices like gyrators, gyroscopes, and microwave phase-shifters are the only devices known that violate the law of equal and opposite action and reaction. The reaction is there, but is shifted in phase by 90 degrees just as the fall of a gyr oscope is translated into precession. Nonreciprocal devices do not violate the law of conservation of energy directly, but allow for the lossless segregation of already present energy into forms that do not mechanically cancel each other. This may relate to Maxwell's demon operating magnet ically through Lorentz forces. It is clear from the quotes above that the SMOT is a nonreciprocal device. There is a resemblance between the magnetic arrangement used in microwave nonreciprocal phase-shifters and the ramps in the SMOT. I think it's possible that, in some way I can 't quite visualize yet, there is a one-way connection between the two "ports" of the SMOT, where the kinetic energy of the ball translates freely in the forward direction but is phase-shifted by a 90 degree angle in the reverse direction. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 02:42:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 02:38:38 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:44:41 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: gwatson@microtronics.com.au, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Reports.. PLEASE!!!kiss/bitE+ Resent-Message-ID: <"RPcqU3.0.In7.Tibfp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8347 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com NONE SMOTE's need not read.. Greg, no need to reply.. trying to BITE+ it now for you:) Greg wrote... > Come on GUYS, do some reporting. Its SIMPLE. Achieve something for ALL > the effort you have put into the SMOTS. > The reports ARE IMPORTANT if these tests are to be taken seriously. Greg, You had a lot of exclimation points behind that ....PLEASE!!!!!!!! (originally:). I just wanted to check in and let you know about your KISS (keep it Simple Stupid) and my direction BITE (Be Infinate to EVERYTHING). This was both to 'relieve' my frustions of my magnets 200+ little ones all over (50% painted RED=north pole & 50% painted WHITE south pole) STICKING to my tools (pliers..balls..pins..tack..and paper clips not to mentioned the spare ramps and anything else metal around! ------------------- Anyway, just to let you know there is at least one other out there pulling out his hair, when I decided to BITE+ it.. (!NOTE- your smot was too 'simple' (or I'm too lucky), but I got a roll-away first time (YES!!) I saw the smoke/SMOT!! . Was going Rotar y, when I also read of the groups desdain of not having another closed loop. Well, I'm back in the running now!; (and my wife too says I've lost my marbles), am going BITE+ design for the longest running unit. I want a 'totally adjustable' SOLID unit (ssmot)that can be 'shipped' from here to there. (anywhere). Including Berry's $200.00 address for a while. (let's see 18 hrs/day x 30-900 days yea!:)ok THERE IS "TOO MUCH EXIT" - FOR THIS NOT TO WORK! ------------------------ OK,I'm an over kill kind of person, hence my base is now a 1/3 of a Fire-rated Door (about 40+ pounds) cut to 3x3'. (heavy, but will travel!) (plane, ship, rail etc..) my 'E' shaped BITE+-it mount, versus KISS (great:) mount, should provide a 'BETTER?' configuration than a U-Joint (or close to a 2 U-Joint advantage). My thoughts were that we need to (UP-DOWN) lift the ramp as well as being able to swivel it (LEFT-RIGHT ) 'while still being able to' adjust it (IN-OUT) back and forth to achieve the maximum exit in the 'blue-hole' area. (2 'U-joints *don't* do this!!') been there! :( :) [see E+ shape as (top)birds-eye view with center 'pivotable' for (up-down) with the ramp/channel running length-wise like $ dollar sign, only connected to the Top & bottom of the E lines - not center + of E+.] The 'E+ mount' has a 'U'cradle at the TOP of the 'E' to support the ramp channel. (a snug but slidable square "U" shape - supporting the ramp). The bottom leg of the 'E_+mount' is the longest, going to & through the ramp-channel with a 'lock-nut' on the opposing side to hold (BITE+ it) when everything is 'set correctly'!. The Center of the 'E+ shape' mount (the + in this case) will PIVOT the 'E ' for up-down, and be welded(!),glued or attached to a slidable BASE (having 'flat-clamps' to secure the postions, 'Slidable' for (IN-OUT). I'm using one (1) screw at the ramp base to allow for PIVOT (LEFT-RIGHT) off the bottom E_+ leg . The "E" is spring assisted top to bottom like a modern auto 'Carburater adjustment screw!'. I can't KISS IT any MORE than above,... maybe an Mech Eng. is out there, but u 'universial joints' or ux2 *doesn't do it*.. so I'll BITE+! ------------------- I know! a picture is worth a zillion(giga?) words, but CSHOW is all I have to convert images to .gifs and PINE to send them out - it didn't seem to work on my attempts. ( I have kermit,x,y,Zmodem that trashes it,ftp?? ) & don't want to support Bill Gates anymore thanks.. but will bend if need be. (I have been trying locally, sending me1 to me2 (different server accounts) and still no luck (hit MIME conver-version filters?) IS ANYONE OUT THERE USING .GIF ATTACMENTS VIA PINE?? (pre-browser -ok!:) ---------- ----------- Actually this (above) is just a mini "C-Clamp" with a "C+" center Pivot on a base. I tired to KISS it! :) even to the point that one(1) "E+"mount design can be interchanged or used for RAMP & MAGNETS!.. although the Ramp is the most important. (up-down)(left-right)(in-out)etc.. like I said, I got blast-off!:) first time (lucky me)?. S o I intend to BITE+ every possible position (360 degrees) with ALL adjustments reachable by user (not under the ramp (like an incline screw),but, exposed to the top or side access, for user friendly adjustments. GREG, this is your 'baby', if I get it right, your 1st rights of refussal are still intact! :), but i think you'll like it & it's YOURS! ------------------------------- I'll be in the back ground now (again).. closing loop (Y E S - it's there!) A BITE+ is not a KISS :) takes a bit longer(?) to apply/build?! Will send my form or Progress REPORT when complete (i'm getting slower as my mind cracks here with this and still only 24 hours in a day). BUT WHEN DONE my BITE+ UNIT will be shipable, displayable or the death of me! :) So, while I don't expect to be the second with a closed loop :), I'll race anybody now for the LONGEST RUNNING LOOP+ :) -------------- p.s. yes, Horece, I 'found' the 'E+' pivot while looking at the moon tonight.. no, i didn't see any poofs of 'snowballs' hitting, but did discover while twisting and pushing a 12mm channel in my fingers that an "E+" joint is better than 2 "U" joints. surely there's something to be said of solidity - somewhere se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 08:12:27 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:55:22 -0400 From: B25B@LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: B25B@LCIA.COM To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Earth batteries Resent-Message-ID: <"nKpwP2.0.Go.CYgfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3868 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred I have a copy of the Stubblefield patent. If you Email your fax number I will fax it to you. Ron Brennen X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 09:07:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:03:31 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:03:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: SMOT Reports.. PLEASE!!!kiss/bitE+ Resent-Message-ID: <"yRqoJ.0.iO2.ILhfp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8357 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 03:44 AM 6/17/97 -0600, Steve Ekwall wrote: [snip] > >I know! a picture is worth a zillion(giga?) words, but CSHOW is all I have >to convert images to .gifs and PINE to send them out - it didn't seem to work >on my attempts. ( I have kermit,x,y,Zmodem that trashes it,ftp?? ) & >don't want to support Bill Gates anymore thanks.. but will bend if need >be. (I have been trying locally, sending me1 to me2 (different server >accounts) and still no luck (hit MIME conver-version filters?) IS ANYONE >OUT THERE USING .GIF ATTACMENTS VIA PINE?? (pre-browser -ok!:) Hi Steve, Are you using Eudora Lite for your e-mail software? If so, then it sends gif files automatically. Your Bite+ design sounds interesting. Confused about what you're using but if it is solid and is bolted down then your closed the loop should run for a long time. The pins holding the mag assays in my designs always got loose over time and it then affecte d the ball climbing characteristics. Looking forward to seeing your gif and hearing more of your experiments. Best Regards, Michael Randall X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 09:57:47 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:57:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Reed Huish To: "'freenrg-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: The "Unidirectional Transformer" Article Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:44:57 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"8iJpD3.0.RE4.S7ifp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3870 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I think Reed Huish of Zenergy may know if the UDT works or not. He may have done some research on this himself. I would contact him by private email, it may save you time and effort of building something that has already been proven to work or not to work . I know of one person who is better than most in the overunity field, who has tried and failed. His results were NOT overunity. THANKS WES Actually the right person to talk to is Walter Rosenthal in California. I do know of two people who claim to have over-unity transformers, one is 4:1 and another is 10:1. I have never seen Paul Jensen's transformer, but I believe Rosenthal has. Contact me if you would like details on Walter. - Reed Huish Zenergy Corp http://zenergy.com Content-Type: application/ms-tnef xŸ>"+X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 07:09:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:49:28 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: UDT References: <199706170741.AAA32388@mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"v9Ede1.0.Tn5.cQffp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3867 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > > Hi Folks, > Assuming for a moment (and I don't think this is a big assumption) that the > SMOT and various other magnetic devices actually work, it seems like trying > to find their purely electrical analogs would be an useful exercise. I agree, but we need to know exactly what "works" means in this context. On Greg's web site, overunity is defined as follows: "Overunity is defined as ANY device which produces more energy than it uses." Is it a big assumption to say that SMOT "works" by this definition? Where is any evidence for the production of energy in excess of that needed to sustain it's operation? Has RMOD driven a load yet? (I'm just asking, while staying well clear of any theoretical discussion of how these devices might operate.) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 12:25:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:24:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: RE: Be Infinte To Everything Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:27:01 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"uAEi-1.0.F21.QHkfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3872 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, Stve and all, I love your slogan, Be infinite to Everything! It reminds me of something I read in the Seth books a long time ago-- "the Self has no limits". This is my working philosophy too, although reading your posts has made me realize how cautious I've gotten. So I'm going to loosen up my mind a little here on paper, and not try so hard to make sense :-) What I'd like to ask in relation to the BITE philosophy is --what is the Infinite in terms of the quest of this group, free energy? The Infinite in our case would be an energy source that was 1) completely solid-state 2) portable 3) completely describable with schematics 4) easy to build 5) inexpensive 6) powerful I will state right up front that my belief that such a source exists is based as much on faith as reason. I am a man of faith-- the faith that a bountiful universe would provide such a resource out of itself, and the faith that we humans can find it. If I was to imaginatively describe the appearance of such a device, I would say I see a normal electrical enclosure with about 7-10 parts, I imagine I see a coil and a crystal or some other nonlinear dielectric and a number of other standard parts. Two wires run out of the box. No wires run in. My operating method is to asuume that this box ALREADY EXISTS in an alternate reality and then try to find out what is in the box. I belief that WE are infinite, and that our minds can range into other dimensions which are just as phyiscal as this one. In dreams I have visited alien spacecraft and seen this type of machine already in operation. I have been told by aliens that such devices can be easily built. The difference between my beliefs and the typical New Ager is that I don't necessarily believe what I'm told. Aliens as a group are not trustworthy! Visions are cool but they don't run my stereo. I want to see this technology operating on this planet IN A BIG WAY in the next 10-15 years or so, and not behind closed doors. I think only the most rabid anti-environmentalist would disagree with the need for this to happen. Perhaps it is a waste of time to go for the INFINITE without building the stages to it, but my attitude is, if the thing I want already exists, why build the ones in between? Why not just pull the Ultimate free-energy device out of the ethers, so to s peak? It would be like building a 747 without building the Wright Brother plane. Stupid? Crazy? Maybe! But suppose you were Wilbur Wright before the building of his plane and you wee being shown a 747 and blueprints thereof in a half remembered dream? Wou ld you want to build a primitive biplane or a 747? FRED X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 10:52:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:51:12 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:51:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: Greg Watson Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Reports ............. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"5DfNX1.0.cn7.Fwifp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8360 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Greg Watson wrote: > > The first report is up. Have a look and REPORT. > I didn't fill out an important part of your java-form. The maximum lift attained was 12 mm. I couldn't get anything higher. I observed roll-aways if the exit rail was 3mm below the entrence height. I had a bit of a go at linking but I didn't have time to establish a stable platform before I left Australia. When SMOT V 2.0 is released I'll get back to SMOTTing. By the way if your new ramps are that much better at linking why not go for a gang of 3 in each straight section? It appears that a single ramp roll-away is very hard to reliably reproduce. Call your present ramps version 2, release details for a 2 * 3 ramp "raceways". Presumably there's enough lift to do a 180 degree turn there. Then work on version 3.0 single ramp roll away. You never know, once version 2.0 is out there, someone may save you the trouble of working out version 3.0 by doing it themselves. Cheers Martin Sevior X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 11:29:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:27:28 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:25:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: RON BRENNEN Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Earth batteries Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"SRN9V1.0.D01.FSjfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3871 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Does anyone know if this patent ever saw practical development or use? _________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office ________________________________________________________ _ On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, RON BRENNEN wrote: > Fred I have a copy of the Stubblefield patent. If you Email your > fax number I will fax it to you. > Ron Brennen > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 19:07:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:51:09 -0700 From: Maxwell To: Free Energy List Subject: [Fwd: Re: UDT] Resent-Message-ID: <"3TbKJ.0.sF3.wuUfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3855 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com -- Maxwell. Be reckless! Practice senseless acts of compassion! Message-ID: <32B489BC.55F7@triode.net.au> Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 15:29:00 -0800 From: Max X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: UDT? References: <199612150238.DAA25144@mailbox.swip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tommy Andersson wrote: > > Have any one built the UDT fund at, > http://www.getnet.com/~beng/russell/philosophy/fulcrum.v3n2/udt.html > > --------------------------------- > Tommy Andersson > tommy.andersson@mbox2.swipnet.se > SWEDEN > --------------------------------- Hi tommy, I looked into this device and found it wanting. The principal of operation if faulty and not based on sound engineering. The UDT POP claims that the fluxes cancel out in the centre leg of the UDT. However, orthodox magnetic theory says it is the magneto-motive forces of the opposing coils that cancel giving rise to no net flux flow - there has to be a net mmf in the centre leg for a flux to flow. I made one of these things using a ferrite core and tested it and confirmed that, once again, orthodoxy wins hands down. I found no O/U. The tricky bit is to accurately measure phase angles on the input to get an accurate power mea surements. Failure to do this can generally lead to misleading O/U results. The UDT can be found at: http://www.philosophy.org/fulcrum.v3n2/udt.html The blurb says: "The following article comes via Toby Grotz, the electrical engineer on the Russell Science Research Team. Paul Raymond Jensen offers his idea free to the world. Thank you Mr. Jensen. We welcome your feedback, comments, or questions regarding thi s or any other article." I emailed Toby Grotz to find out more and I have included his reply. Subject: UDT Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 11:11:02 -0700 From: Max To: wireless@rmii.com Attention Toby Grotz. Dear Mr Grotz, Can you please shed some light on the unidirectional Transformer design released publicly via 'Science Journal of the University of Science and Philosophy' described as being sourced by you? I wish to build a UDT but dont want to waste my time flogging a dead horse. Can you please authenticate the reality of this overunity unit? Has a working version of a UDT been built and shown to produce overunity? Is there someone I can communicate with who can help me duplicate this work? Thank You. ----------------- Toby Grotz reply: ----------------- Subject: Re: UDT Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 08:24 MDT From: wireless@rmii.com (toby grotz) To: Max >To my knowledge, Paul Jenson never pursued this past the first few that he built. I do not know if anyone else has built one. You can check with Walt Rosenthal at 805-934-2058. He met Jensen and saw some of the hardware. ------------ What leaves me puzzled is why Mr Grozt, and engineer, did not spot the flaw in the POP (principle of operation) for the UDT? I hope this throws some light on the UDT, Max. ---------------------------MORE ON UDT---------------------------------- You can get a Transcript of a talk by Paul R. Jensen - The Unidirectional Transformer [pp 545-549] the ISNE is run by Toby Grotz, I think from memory. ************************************************************************ Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on New Energy: 2nd ISNE ************************************************************************ 2nd International Symposium on New Energy Featuring Over 30 Advanced Energy Researchers Including Several International Researchers Sponsored by the Institute for New Energy AND FEATURING AN EXPLORATION OF "FREE ENERGY" GENERATORS: A SYMPOSIUM FOR PROFESSIONALS, INDUSTRY, LAY PEOPLE, AND NEWS MEDIA Was Held: May 12-15, 1994, at the Denver Hilton South, Denver, CO. PROCEEDINGS ORDERING: --------------------- The Proceedings is $50.00 plus Shipping and Handling as follows: [656 Pages, Includes a Subject Index] [8 1/2 by 11 by 1 1/2 inches, Spiral Bound] Proceedings + Air/Surface/Book Mailing Rates = Total Cost: [All Amounts are due in US Dollars] Air /Surf./Book Rates: Cont. USA: $50.00 + 5.00/5.00/2.00 = $55.00/55.00/52.00. Hawaii: $50.00 + 5.00/5.00/2.00 = $55.00/55.00/52.00. Canada: $50.00 + 6.00/6.00/3.00 = $56.00/56.00/53.00. Europe: $50.00 + 17.00/7.00/4.00 = $67.00/57.00/54.00. USSR: $50.00 + 17.00/7.00/4.00 = $67.00/57.00/54.00. China: $50.00 + 23.00/7.00/4.00 = $73.00/57.00/54.00. Kuwait: $50.00 + 23.00/7.00/4.00 = $73.00/57.00/54.00. Others: Use a Country closest to those above. ORDER THE PROCEEDINGS FROM: ORDER THE PROCEEDINGS FROM: The Institute for New Energy P.O. Box 201 Los Altos, CA 94023-0201 ine@padrak.com X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 10:46:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:36:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:55:21 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Netscape bug Resent-Message-ID: <"zrYu63.0.TG2.2o1gp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8408 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, These are two subjects slightly out of context. But they are some related to SMOT research. Network down in Turkey for 20 hours due electric power company applying cuts by the shortage of power. It penalticise citizens after close downing thermo-electric(coal) plants by the court enforcement by the argument of very heavy pollution they did in th e national park region. (Long sentence, I hope you able understand it despite my poor english and such a incredible things we are practicing here) So far, I catch a Netscape all versions bug causing error on receiving mails with POP3. The problem caused by the periodic mail checker. If it check the mail while retrieving mail cause error. The remedy is using long periods enough to allow time for retr ieving all mail queued in server. I don't know all the mail servers behave in the same fashion to cause the error. Ok, I got the SMOT Mk II Beta 1, Thank you Greg. Still I trying to scale up the design according my big magnet size. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 14:14:15 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:10:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:16:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: Free Energy Subject: RE: Be Infinte To Everything Resent-Message-ID: <"OplBA1.0._L.Rrlfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3873 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Fred Epps wrote: > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:27:01 -0700 > From: Fred Epps > Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com > To: Free Energy > Subject: RE: Be Infinte To Everything > Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:24:12 -0700 (PDT) > Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com > > Hi, Stve and all, > > I love your slogan, Be infinite to Everything! It reminds me of > something I read in the Seth books a long time ago-- "the Self has no > limits". -----big snip--- > This is my working philosophy too, although reading your posts has made > me realize how cautious I've gotten. So I'm going to loosen up my mind a > little here on paper, and not try so hard to make sense :-) > Perhaps it is a waste of time to go for the INFINITE without building > the stages to it, but my attitude is, if the thing I want already exists, > why build the ones in between? Why not just pull the Ultimate free-energy > device out of the ethers, so to speak? > FRED > -----snip----- > Opps, didn't mean to mislead you.. BITE+ is just an 'E' shaped physcial clamp design I thought of last night that would pyscially allow my muffed up all thumbs finger to adjust my smot ramps as I try for maximum height. I did love reading you thoughts on Infinity power though. I liked Bite+ cause that's how I felt when I got close to a solid unit, pins would give out, come loose or my "round" n-gauge would MOVE (grrr). Maybe I should have called it the NID360S mount. for Nail It Down 360 degrees Stupid. I was holding the channel/ramp in my hand pushing-pulling lifting-lowering and swiveling left right, and wondered WHY CAN't I have a mount that can simulate my fingers & wrist.. being able to CLAMP it at any given postition. Like the mounts (ball.swive l) on a camera stand, but I'd still need the Up-Down Camera mount 'stem-pole' adjustment.. also I would need to always access my adjustments screws from the top or side. AND it would need to be small enough to work in Greg's original size constraints. I tried to keep it simple...only 5 different parts less the screws to hold the base down...3 should work with ramp and both magnets. Nailed! intead of BITE+ or NID360S, Maybe "HOLLOW mount" for Hold On a little like yourOwn Wrist, would have been best. Hollow like my head :) just Simpleton minded P.Eng. design. se :) ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 14:35:09 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 06:57:43 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Mark II Plans Resent-Message-ID: <"JkNce3.0.ly4.Y9mfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3874 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com HI All, Thanks for the SMOT Mark I results. Keep them coming. I am finishing up the SMOT Mark II plans now. Will put them up later today. But before you see them and tear apart your SMOT Mark I ramps, how about doing a few measurements and reporting your hard won results for history? Idea > test > record > improve > test > record > improvr > test > record > etc. Its the scientific way! The only way! Do it! -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 14:35:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 06:57:43 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Mark II Plans Resent-Message-ID: <"JkNce3.0.Vy4.W9mfp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8366 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com HI All, Thanks for the SMOT Mark I results. Keep them coming. I am finishing up the SMOT Mark II plans now. Will put them up later today. But before you see them and tear apart your SMOT Mark I ramps, how about doing a few measurements and reporting your hard won results for history? Idea > test > record > improve > test > record > improvr > test > record > etc. Its the scientific way! The only way! Do it! -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 15:39:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:39:07 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Be Infinte To Everything Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:02:57 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"dqChx2.0.t05.A8nfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3877 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Steve, > > Opps, didn't mean to mislead you.. BITE+ is just an 'E' shaped physcial > clamp design I thought of last night that would pyscially allow my muffed > up all thumbs finger to adjust my smot ramps as I try for maximum height. > I did love reading you thoughts on Infinity power though. You're more profound and inspiring than you think! Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 15:08:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:06:44 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:04:36 +0200 From: Tameer Hohnsbein Reply-To: T.Hohnsbein@tu.bs.de Organization: Technische Universität Braunschweig To: "freenrg-l@eskimo.com" , gwatson@microtronics.com.au Subject: Re: SMOT Mark II Plans References: <33A7014F.32EB@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"RH92E1.0.gU3.nfmfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3875 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > Idea > test > record > improve > test > record > improvr > test > record > > etc. > > Its the scientific way! The only way! Do it! > Psst, don't tell that so loudly while my wife is standing near by. She will wash your head with female intuition ;-) Best wishes from my better half :-) Tameer _________________________________________ Tameer Hohnsbein Hagenring 80, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany E-Mail: T.Hohnsbein@tu-bs.de phone : ++49 531 / 335348 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 15:45:02 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:38:59 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" , Subject: Re: The Neutral Zone and the UDT Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:38:39 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"1xtUt.0.A05.28nfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3876 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Bob and all, > >What about the orientation of those atoms that happen to have exactly equal > >forces acting on them? > >Wouldn't they flip back and forth in the way I described because of random > >thermal fluctuations? > [snip] > >I was thinking vaguely of this while writing. There is a lot to assimilate > >in all this. I'm getting more hopped > >up about Tim's idea of a "latching mechanism' on the domain (?) level. > [snip] Bob says > Not sure this is relevant to this thread, but new ideas come > from connecting unrelated dots, you might want to look at > the technologies of Ferro Based Nonvolatile RAM's. Such as > Ramatron, and the defunct FRAM company Krystalis (rights > where bought by National Semiconductor, before they went > under. National has never delivered any of their parts as > far as I know). If you are looking of latching technologies > on the (almost) molecular level these might be worth a look. Yes, I think it is relevant. When Jean-Louis Naudin and I were working on variable inductors for a parametric circuit, I considered using square-loop ferrites that will latch in one of two magnetic states if a voltage pulse is applied. I thought that s ince the permeability of the core varies in the same way with pulsing, I could use brief voltage pulses to rapidly switch the permeability of a core back and forth. I could then use this varying permeability to drive a parametric generator. Maybe I'll reconsider that idea in relation to domain latching and Tim's fluctuation energy. The drawback to the scheme is that the power winding also has a magnetic field that affects the voltage pulses. I don't know how much difference that makes in practice. If your resonant output circuit had a voltage limiting circuit built in, the output v oltage would never reach the levels of the control signal and the the permeability would stay latched despite variations in output voltage. Thanks for the tip, Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 16:30:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:53:04 +0930 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT Results Report Corrections Resent-Message-ID: <"R3z612.0.tn2.drnfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3878 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have received 7 reports to date. Thank you. I have posted them to my web page. There seems to be some confusion on 2 of the items : 1) Dropaway. This is a measure of how far a ball placed at the end of the ramp must be "manually" pushed down below the exit level to drop away from the exit field. This figure is normally in the range of 3 to 6mm. The lift - dropaway figure then gives you some indi cation of the amount of PE available to rollaway. It was one of the key design elements in the development of the SMOT Mark II design. To get rollaways, it is critical that you understand this measurement and what it means. Max lift is NOT always the g oal. Lift - dropaway = PE rollaway IS! Sometimes lower lift will give better results as the magnets's top spacing can be opened out and dropaway reduces faster than lift drops resulting in better PE rollaway. 2) Array spacings. This is measured from the top and bottom most interior faces of the arrays to the opposite point. If you have posted results, would you verify your posting on my site and per the above. I am working on the Java source to include the additional data as shown on the site. The email report is current. Anyway, back to the SMOT Mk II drawings. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 16:46:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darknet.net: Host ts1p25.bmts.com [204.191.100.125] claimed to be bmts.com.bmts.com Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:44:28 -0400 From: Steve Reply-To: darklord@darknet.net Organization: DarkNet Technologies To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Earth batteries References: <199706170356.UAA11054@mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"L8UFZ1.0.qY3.K7ofp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3880 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > > Hi folks! > > > Jorg: Earth batteries take energy from the earth. They are relatively > > easy to construct. I am considering making one, and am looking for some > > one who has had some experience with them. I am not aware of any web > > sites with any info on them. I became aware of them from an article on > > them in the third quarter, 1995 issue of Borderlands Mag. The article > > is about Nathan Stubblefield who offered to build a power plant for the > > entire town, using them, so I assume they are quite powerful suppliers > > of free energy. > You said they were relatively easy to construct, can someone explain how they are constructed, or how they operate? thanks! -Steve darklord@darknet.net X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 16:46:38 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:45:37 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:45:24 -0400 X-Sender: richarda@mailhub.icx.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: richarda@icx.net (Richard Austin) Subject: Re: The Neutral Zone and the UDT Resent-Message-ID: <"I32jI1.0.Ub.W6ofp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3879 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com snip... What we need then is a magnetic diode. > >Yes, I think it is relevant. When Jean-Louis Naudin and I were working on >variable inductors for a parametric circuit, I considered using >square-loop ferrites that will latch in one of two magnetic states if a >voltage pulse is applied. I thought that since the permeability of the >core varies in the same way with pulsing, I could use brief voltage pulses >to rapidly switch the permeability of a core back and forth. I could then >use this varying permeability to drive a parametric generator. >Maybe I'll reconsider that idea in relation to domain latching and Tim's >fluctuation energy. >The drawback to the scheme is that the power winding also has a magnetic >field that affects the voltage pulses. I don't know how much difference >that makes in practice. If your resonant output circuit had a voltage >limiting circuit built in, the output voltage would never reach the levels >of the control signal and the the permeability would stay latched despite >variations in output voltage. > >Thanks for the tip, > >Fred > Richard Austin -- email: richarda@icx.net -- radio: KG7SU Check out the Institute for Planetary Renewal at http://user.icx.net/~richarda X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 16:51:40 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 01:47:59 +0200 From: Tameer Hohnsbein Reply-To: T.Hohnsbein@tu.bs.de Organization: Technische Universität Braunschweig To: Greg Watson , "freenrg-l@eskimo.com" Subject: don't use magnets with holes Resent-Message-ID: <"jEnUP.0.Ho3.UBofp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3881 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, all SMOTis, for my magnet arrays I took some magnets from the tinker drawer of a lokal shop wich have nearly the size Greg suggested (4 * 10 * 17 mm) but have a hole in them (3mm dia). First I thought of an improvement to get a solid ramp, took some plastic screws and mounted the magnets to the backing strip. --------- |M|M|M|M|S| |M|M|M|M|S| |M|M|M|M|S| H|=|=|=|=|=| |M|M|M|M|S| |M|M|M|M|S| |M|M|M|M|S| --------- |M|M|M|M|S| |M|M|M|M|S| |M|M|M|M|S| H|=|=|=|=|=| |M|M|M|M|S| |M|M|M|M|S| |M|M|M|M|S| --------- : : M=magnet, S=backing strip, H=head of plasik srew In spite of all my adjustment efforts the ball often jumps CLICK off the road, and it seems it happens when the ball passes a hole in the magnet arrays. Not a very helpful improvement. :( Looking for new magnets now. Does anyone have suggestions for sources in Germany? -- Best regards Tameer PS: Hi Greg, I think I won't burden your test result database with this, OK? Tameer _________________________________________ Tameer Hohnsbein Hagenring 80, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany E-Mail: T.Hohnsbein@tu-bs.de phone : ++49 531 / 335348 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 17:52:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:55:28 -0400 From: B25B@LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: B25B@LCIA.COM To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Earth batteries Resent-Message-ID: <"zYZS92.0.OS6.d3pfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3882 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi fellows: The requests for copies of the Stubblefield patent are getting a little much for me to handle. I got my copy of the patent by fax from Optipatent. (800-445-9760). Patent #600,457. Before getting the patent I would suggest reading the article in Borderland s (3 quarter, 1995 by Gerry Vassilatos), it is fasinating. Email: info@borderlands.com Ron Brennen X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 18:35:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:34:32 -0700 From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ANOTHER ONE FROM POPULAR ELECTRONICS Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:59:39 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net References: <199706170303.UAA14689@claim.goldrush.com> Lines: 28 Resent-Message-ID: <"Gqna_2.0.Dp5.cipfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3884 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >I know that Popular Electronics does not do this on purpose:BUT >Here is another [APRIL] > issue that is to good to be true. >This is out of april 1977 word for word. > >NEW SOLAR CELL >Q. WHAT IS THE IN SITU SOLAR CELL PROCESS? >spray the sand with two liters of 3.7 Dimethylpentadecon-2-ol Propionate, > >THATS ALL FOLKS. I WAS TEMPTED TO KEEP THIS ONE TO MYSELF, BUT WHO KNOWS. >MAYBE IT'S ONLY AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE. It was a April Fools Joke. They admitted a few issue latter that they did it on purpose, and that it got more response than any thing in their history at that time. There where some subsequent follow up instructions on how to make it out of cookie sheet s, and the Dimethylpentadecon-2-ol Propionate could be extracted from pig saliva. -- NOTE: I have a new e-mail address: bpaddock@csonline.net For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 18:35:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:34:28 -0700 From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: something new : drawing(s) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:10:58 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net References: <08350049004304@relay.unicall.be> Lines: 18 Resent-Message-ID: <"4FIqv3.0.fo5.Zipfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3883 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >>Wow, that seems like a long time. I was able to power an LCD watch for >>about two months with a potatoe ... the potatoe dried up. I'm sure that if >>you kept the fruit/vegetable/compost hydrated that you could extend the >>life of the battery. If you go to http://www.coolpld.com, you will find a link to a page where they have all manner of food powered projects. The PAL's at this page are rated at "five grape fruit compaired to our competetors at almost 100 grape fruit" in power consomption. -- NOTE: I have a new e-mail address: bpaddock@csonline.net For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 18:27:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:20:30 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Gre g Watson cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: S-report Resent-Message-ID: <"Expaq1.0.nK.jZpfp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8374 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Dear Vo., My SMOT modification: Steel packing strap for flux guide on outside. 3/16 X 7/8 X 1 inch Nd Fe B magnets, fvie on each rail "V" aluminum rail Stable lift of 18 mm in length of 120 mm with a] 1/2 " ball, less than 1/2oz b] 7/8 ... about 1 1/4 oz c] 1 1/4 ... slightly more than 5 oz a] zips right along, crashes into screwhead it can't clear, leaps in air, crashes down to track.... exits with "great vigah" .. to use the words of the late Jack Kennedy. b] clears screwhead due to larger ball diameter riding higher on track .... velocity slower .... exits c] same as [b] ... but slower yet ... but does exit. Set up needs no adjustment ....works with all ball sizes. Not optimized ..... made of tape and wood. SEE GREG ... I reported! JHS X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 20:39:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:38:11 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:04:01 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Newman , List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Mk II Beta (Rollaway!!!!!) Resent-Message-ID: <"mEKdS3.0.dL5.VWrfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3885 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Attached is the SMOT Mk II Beta 1. Sounds like software. Need to add all the fancy bits, but there is enough there for some of you to get your teeth into it. I just achieved a good solid rollaway with a single ramp. Followed my own suggestion and reduced lift height to reduce dropaway and increase PE rollaway. It worked! I am updating my site now. Have taken a few pics. Will get a quick develop and scan. Should be up by the weekend. Good duplication. Remember to report your results! -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\SMOT2B1P.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 20:41:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:38:09 -0 700 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:04:01 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Newman , List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Mk II Beta (Rollaway!!!!!) Resent-Message-ID: <"mEKdS3.0.cL5.VWrfp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8380 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Attached is the SMOT Mk II Beta 1. Sounds like software. Need to add all the fancy bits, but there is enough there for some of you to get your teeth into it. I just achieved a good solid rollaway with a single ramp. Followed my own suggestion and reduced lift height to reduce dropaway and increase PE rollaway. It worked! I am updating my site now. Have taken a few pics. Will get a quick develop and scan. Should be up by the weekend. Good duplication. Remember to report your results! -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/Content-Type: image/gif; name="smot2b1plan.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="smot2b1plan.gif" GIF89aôŠ÷X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 01:06:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 01:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:54:55 +1000 X-Sender: egel@main.murray.net.au To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: New Solaris Mirror sites and Encyclopedia of free energy Resent-Message-ID: <"k8eOe2.0.x-6.xIafp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3864 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Please check out my new Solaris mirror sites http://www.angelfire.com/ak/egel http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135 At the new geocities site you can view new ideas not shown at my main web site and now download directly a zip copy of my Encyclopedia of Free Energy and if you like it pay the shareware suggested price of $10. Geoff Egel http://murray.net.au/users/egel/ Check out the new website included on the helpful site listings X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 23:00:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:59:09 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:58:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: RE: Be Infinte To Everything Resent-Message-ID: <"JhCz.0.OE4.iatfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3886 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Steve - >> >Opps, didn't mean to mislead you.. BITE+ is just an 'E' shaped physcial >clamp design I thought of last night that would pyscially allow my muffed >up all thumbs finger to adjust my smot ramps as I try for maximum height. Have you built or used this 'E' shaped clamp gizmo? It sounded like you did. Eudora Light runs in Windows. I don't know if it runs in DOS. Thanks, Michael X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 00:52:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:50:49 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 03:49:13 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: gwatson@microtronics.com.au, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT II - QField simulation Resent-Message-ID: <"CxWoM1.0.Xr6.IDvfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3887 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Thanks to Greg for the new release of the SMOT mark II, You will find the QField simulation about this new SMOT design at : http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/sm2qfld.htm The magnets specs : Ferrite barrium ( anisotrop ) : 40 x 10 mm relative permability : 1.1 coercitive force magnitude : 165 kA/m Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 00:54:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:52:06 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: The Neutral Zone and the UDT Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:51:02 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"QGfnl.0.9Z.aEvfp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3888 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Richard and all, ... > > What we need then is a magnetic diode. I take it you mean a solid-state flux gate. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it is possible to vary the permeability of a magnetic material or otherwise gate the field of a permanet magnet using less energy than is produced. And I haven't se en any evidence that it's impossible. There have been many projects where either rotary or solid-state flux gating is used. I haven't seen any conclusive reports either way. The Free Energy Handbook V.2 says that the Richardon device was built and tested and "only produced 500 W" but it doesn't say how many watts had to be supplied to power the electromagnets that switched the permanent magnet flux in and out of an inductor. I am waiting to hear the results from Stefan Hartmann's rotary project, which is representative of the rotary class of these devices. There are a lot of ways to vary the permeability of a magnetic material. They basically consist of ways to bring the material closer to saturation so that the permeability goes low. This can be done with electromagnets placed at right angles to the "magnetic diode" core, so that there is no transformer action. The ferrites sh ould be Manganese-Zinc chosen for low losses (at low frequencies) and rate of change of mu with applied field, info you find in the databooks for ferrite cores. Keep in mind that the presence of the permanent magnet will push the saturation point lower. I have discussed my designs for these kinds of gates (in the guise of variable inductors) ad nauseum. Richard, if you want more details on my proposed refinements to these devices, plus some other ideas I haven't discussed, let me know. Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 08:50:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 01:06:27 -0700 From: "Glenville T. Sawyer" Reply-To: gsawyer@dove.net.au Organization: Making a "CONCERTed EFFort" - Lighting, Theatre, Concerts, Special Events and effects. To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Reports.. PLEASE!!!kiss/bitE+ References: Resent-Message-ID: <"SX-v11.0.lx1.86hfp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3869 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Well - PLEASE !!!!!! Send your SMOT results to GREG !! It's a lovely piece of Javascript ( but I would have to say that wouldn't I ;-) ) - written in "down Under" - and just waiting for YOUR results. O.k so I personally have not yet achieved a SMOT result, but I am also looking in other directions as well, primarily rotary in concept. So if you HAVE got a result from the S.M.O.T - then send it in to Greg. The more results that can confirm the local findings, the better position we will ALL be in to start promoting the O/U concept in a PRACTICAL - and REALISABLE fashion to the rest of the World. Just to think, it took another Aussie to make it work ! :-) Glenville. -- Glenville T. Sawyer (VK5ZCF) mailto:gsawyer@dove.net.au Home-site http://dove.net.au/~gsawyer - please visit Lighting, Concerts, Special Events & Extra Special Effects X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 16:33:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:24:41 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ANOTHER ONE FROM POPULAR ELECTRONICS References: <199706170303.UAA14689@claim.goldrush.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"1nrVv.0.C06.Zr_fp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3889 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wes Crosiar wrote: > > I know that Popular Electronics does not do this on purpose:BUT > Here is another [APRIL] > issue that is to good to be true. > This is out of april 1977 word for word. > > NEW SOLAR CELL > Q. WHAT IS THE IN SITU SOLAR CELL PROCESS? > > A.That's the big breakthrough in solar cell design that drops the cost of > solar power to $90 per Kilowatt. Actually, the in situ [latin for "in > place"] technique is stunningly simple. Instead of refining the silicon and > then building cells. You build the cells first and then refine the silicon. > > The process generates a cell from ordinary BEACH SAND [silicon dioxide]. > after cell fabrication, the sand is chemically treated. The reaction drives > off the oxygen, leaving an almost pure polycrystaline silicon. Most > conveniently, any remaining impurities rearrange themselves to form > uniformly doped series connected PN junctions through a process called > Barfoot Layering. For each centimeter of cell thickenss, you typically get > SEVERAL HUNDERD SERIES PN JUNCTIONS OR ABOUT 120 VOLTS DC UNDER NORMAL > SUNLIGHT. The thickness of the panel determines the [voltage] and the area > the [current]. Typical current densitees are FOUR AMPERES PER SQUARE METER > OF PANEL!!! > YOU CAN EASILY BUILD A 100 WATT CELL. SIMPLY TAKE AN ORDINARY METAL > COOKIE SHEET. COVER IT UNIFORMLY WITH A 1-CENTIMETER THICK LAYER OF BEACH > SAND, COVER THAT WITH A PIECE OF SCREENING FOR THE FRONT COLLECTOR, ADD A > PROTECTIVE GLASS COVER, AND CLAMP EVERYTHING TOGETHER WITH LARGE RUBBER > BANDS, BUNGEE CORDS OR SOMETHING SIMILAR. > TO do your final chemical refinement carefuly remove the glass cover and > spray the sand with two liters of 3.7 Dimethylpentadecon-2-ol Propionate, > [available from larger organic chemical supply houses}. An ordinary window > cleaner bottle makes a handy spray source. Reaction time is four hours. > Since the reaction is photoisentropic, it should be done under magenta > safelight, such as that from a Portal Industries j-666 source. [I THINK > THIS IS SHORT FOR BLACK LIGHT.] > The front terminal is positive and the greatest output will be obtained > when the panel is pointed due south at an elevation of your latitude plus > ten degrees. A group of panels can, of course be wired in parallel for > independent, on site power. > > THATS ALL FOLKS. I WAS TEMPTED TO KEEP THIS ONE TO MYSELF, BUT WHO KNOWS. > MAYBE IT'S ONLY AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE. > THANKS WES Exactly right Wes, its a joke sadly. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 10:03:21 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:01:17 -0700 (PDT) From: vex@unicall.be X-Sender: vex@unicall.be (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Earth batteries Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:54:03 +0200 Resent-Message-ID: <"G54Kr2.0.0J7.DH1gp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3890 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Hi fellows: >The requests for copies of the Stubblefield patent are getting a little >much for me to handle. I got my copy of the patent by fax from >Optipatent. (800-445-9760). Patent #600,457. Before getting the patent >I would suggest reading the article in Borderlands (3 quarter, 1995 by >Gerry Vassilatos), it is fasinating. Email: info@borderlands.com >Ron Brennen > Hi all, anyone able to scan the patent papers, so that these can be D/L from some point on the internet ?? Maybe Mr Fred, as a way to get some distraction from the SMOT subject (( :-) )) ? TIA, Johnny / Belgium X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 13:06:16 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:01:29 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Earth batteries Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:21:48 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"HnHMn2.0.wi2.Nw3gp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3891 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, Johnny. I just bought a new computer and I need to get some more RAM to run my new scanner. Soon... > > Hi all, > anyone able to scan the patent papers, so that these can be D/L from some > point on the internet ?? Maybe Mr Fred, as a way to get some distraction > from the SMOT subject (( :-) )) ? > TIA, > Johnny / Belgium > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 12:33:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Jun 97 15:23:43 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: RE: SMOTs and lift-dropaway=rollaway tes Resent-Message-ID: <"HdlTL3.0._m6.xQ3gp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8410 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mike, It's a "rollaway" if the ball rolls away from the magnets, on a level track above or equal to its starting height. > Case 1 rollaway might be tricky to achieve, but it is in no way > prohibited by ordinary magnetics and conservation of energy. Case > 2 rollaway requires something extra. I'm less sure about that. Assuming for simplicity that the initial and final heights are the same, the problem is that the initial and final magnetic PE is not actually quantified. The initial point *does* seem to be at a lower magnetic PE (deeper into the field), and there are the losses to account for. But such problems as the 'level' really being that can mean that the arrangement will not work when you turn the ramp through 180 degrees. Or there might be some subtle thing we are missing. To be sure, you *have* to link the start and finish to close the loop. I'm sufficiently impressed by Greg's latest design that I shall copy it, because it seems to be a logical extension of some pretty odd results I've seen already. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 13:09:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:02:10 -0700 Date: 18 Jun 97 16:00:29 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: "Rollaway" definition Resent-Message-ID: <"h6hN43.0.Yl2.0x3gp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8413 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com To: Vortex; >INTERNET:gwatson@microtronics.com.au; >INTERNET:JNaudin509@aol.com Michael J. Schaffer asks a critical question: 1) the ball rolls beyond of the sharp magnetic barrier (that exists near the end of the magnet array) but is subsequently trapped in the return flux well a few cm away along the level exit track . . . Nope! Anyone can get a SMOT to do this, even me. Actually, mine usually stops dead at the end of the ramp, trapped in the flux. 2) the ball continues to roll out of the return flux well along the level exit track and stops some good distance beyond the end of the magnets, beyond the influence of their return flux, say 10 cm or more. Yes! Please see the latest GIF from Greg Watson. The exit track is level with the entrance. At least, I hope it is level, and not slightly biased downhill. The ball is supposed to hit the exit track and keep going, right out of the picture, the way it does in the little movie on Jean-Louis Naudin's home page. I believe that the SMOT shown in Naudin's movie actually has an exit ramp below the entrance ramp level. I asked him about that, but he never responded. If the exit drops below the entrance then a rollaway proves nothing, although I must say, even a fake rollaway is difficult to engineer. I can't get it happen often even when I cheat and give myself an extra 5 mm drop. Please note that another legitimate, real o-u rollaway would be to go up 10 mm, drop down 8 mm onto a track which slopes down slightly to drop another 1 mm. This is more practical, I think. It is kind of like the "kick" the curved ramp gives the ball as i t falls. Case 1 rollaway might be tricky to achieve, but it is in no way prohibited by ordinary magnetics and conservation of energy. Very tricky! But of course it is no anomaly. Just a cute parlor trick. Case 2 rollaway requires something extra. Exactly! Let us make double sure of this. This is the whole point, and if Greg and Jean-louis have not triple checked it we could be wasting our time. (Except, of course, Greg also saw a closed loop . . . maybe he was dreaming?!?) I'll send this message directly t o the principals, as well Vortex. GREG: I know you are busy, but please tell us: 1. Are you sure your SMOT Mk II exit ramp is level or slightly above the entrance ramp? 2. Have you removed the magnets and placed the ball on the exit track to see if it rolls away? Have you tried giving the exit track a slight bias back towards the ramp? 3. Have you tried it with the exit ramp slightly above the entrance, say 1 mm? 4. How far away does the ball roll? JEAN-LOUIS: In your home page movie, does the ball ever drop to a level below the starting point? When it rolls out of the picture, is it level with or below the starting point? From the drawing, I think it ends up 3 mm below the starting point. I asked you this befo re, and so did some other people. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 13:10:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:04:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:04:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: SMOT Mk II Beta (Rollaway!!!!!) Resent-Message-ID: <"zKDmk.0.qw2.zy3gp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8414 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Greg Watson wrote: > Hi All, > > Attached is the SMOT Mk II Beta 1. Sounds like software. Need to add > all the fancy bits, but there is enough there for some of you to get > your teeth into it. > > I just achieved a good solid rollaway with a single ramp. Followed my > own suggestion and reduced lift height to reduce dropaway and increase > PE rollaway. It worked! > OK, I'll have a go over the next few days. Thanks for the beta release! Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 14:48:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:44:19 -0700 Date: 18 Jun 97 17:42:18 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Phase 5 not reached? Resent-Message-ID: <"MQEJ21.0.1R1.nQ5gp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8421 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com To: Vortex Greg's home page has messages like: Sorry... Phase 5 is not yet reached! That's http://home.worldonline.nl/~catware/phase5.html. Phase five is when the ball goes around and around without stopping. Greg: does this mean your home page is not finished? Or does it mean you have never achieved Phase 5, and you retract your earlier claims?!? The home page also says phases 3 and 4 have not been reached. I don't get it. - Jed X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 14:56:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:55:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:21:47 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: SMOT Mk II Beta (Rollaway!!!!!) References: <199706180639.XAA26713@italy.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"x1RnZ3.0.tx2.Nb5gp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3893 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > Have you closed the loop with this ramp design? Will this design be > incorporated in your SMOT kit? Will the kit contain all parts required > to > build a close the loop course? > > Best Regards, > Michael Hi Michael, No, I haven't closed with the beta 1 design yet. My design goal was to achieve a "SIMPLE" to adjust ramp which could achieve a equal height level rollaway. Then use either 2 ramps linked via 2 x 180 deg sections of level track or use 4 ramps linked via 4 x 90 deg sections of track. The design IS easy to adjust and will do a equal height level rollaway and will allow your experimention and testing to achieve higher lifts and still hold the 0mm dropaway feature (increase the lift - dropaway = rollaway PE). SO our goal is to achieve a rollaway, then maximize lift and do a 90 deg link to a second ramp. Closing is then assured. REMEMBER .......... Raw lift power is NOT the answer ............ GO for MAX Rollaway PE .......... -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 15:18:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:16:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:42:49 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOTs and lift-dropaway=rollaway testing References: Resent-Message-ID: <"6IIBR1.0.Cl5.zu5gp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3894 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Schaffer@gav.gat.com wrote: > > There has been a great deal of discussion about 'rollaway' in SMOT > testing. > However, I have so far not read a definition of 'rollaway'. > > Is it 'rollaway' when: > > 1) the ball rolls beyond of the sharp magnetic barrier (that exists near > the end of the magnet array) but is subsequently trapped in the return flux > well a few cm away along the level exit track; or Not this one. > 2) the ball continues to roll out of the return flux well along the level > exit track and stops some good distance beyond the end of the magnets, > beyond the influence of their return flux, say 10 cm or more. This always has been my defination of a Rollaway. > In both cases, I presume that the exit track is level and no lower than the > entrance track. Correct. > Case 1 rollaway might be tricky to achieve, but it is in no way prohibited > by ordinary magnetics and conservation of energy. Case 2 rollaway requires > something extra. > > Michael J. Schaffer Hi Michael, Its case 2 or nothing. So far 3 others have reported success at rollaways. One has reported a 6 loop rollaround. Getting interested??????? -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 17:08:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:32:27 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server NeoTech , List Server Newman , List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Results 2 x Rollaways, 1 x Rollaround Resent-Message-ID: <"CeoeJ3.0.0P6.iW7gp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3895 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have just updated the SMOT Result data base with Epitaxy and Ken Smith's results. Check out Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ 1 x Rollaround. 2 x Rollaways at higher than entry level. The world is changing. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 17:51:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:50:21 -0700 From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Earth batteries Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:36:27 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net References: <16540398414616@relay.unicall.be> Lines: 13 Resent-Message-ID: <"Wv0Gt.0.wJ3.C98gp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3896 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >anyone able to scan the patent papers, so that these can be D/L from some A cheap way to scan things is FAX them to your self, or from a real FAX machine into your computer FAX. -- NOTE: I have a new e-mail address: bpaddock@csonline.net For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 19:29:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:53:42 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Links 2x 3x Resent-Message-ID: <"8B2vz1.0.M46.wa9gp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3897 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Thanks to Jean-Louis, I have just updated my site with images of 2 and 3 linked ramps. http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/energy.html#SMOT Good SMOTING. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 19:55:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:54:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:51:54 -0400 From: Dave DeLeo Reply-To: ddeleo@ix.netcom.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Mk II Beta (Rollaway!!!!!) References: <33A75729.9BB72303@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"llkty1.0.KH4.lz9gp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3898 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, I don't know if you still have those pictures of my early ramp but it looks very similar to your Mk II. I used parallel arrays w/ increasing with. The biggest difference is I used a thin piece of steel (kitchen knives) on the inside of the arrays. I wi ll try building it by your plans as soon as possible. Sorry I haven't reported my results but I disassembled my arrays several days ago to try different configurations (Radio Shack ran out of magnets so I had to recycle them from my existing setups). Th e next working ramp I build I will measure and report ASAP though. Thanks again for sharing your work...... Dave DeLeo X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 22:07:20 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:32:28 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: DNMEC Update Resent-Message-ID: <"Aydue.0.Jr6.yvBgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3899 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, As I have had several requests for more info on the DNMEC effect, I have updated my site with further info on the DNMEC effect and why drive motor current goes down as current is drawn from the output coil. Check out : http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/energy.html#DNMEC -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 23:31:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:38:22 -0700 From: Bob Horst Reply-To: bhorst@loc1.tandem.com Organization: Tandem Computers Inc. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Attempt at a new type of RMOD Resent-Message-ID: <"78IAU2.0.Pb2.e7Dgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8448 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Last weekend, I attempted to build a Rotating OU Device of my own design. Unfortunately it shows no signs of OU, so I am giving up -- maybe this will be of some help to others, at least giving you one idea not to try. The idea for the device is as follows. Think of a ramp bent downward over a cylinder. The ball would take a circular path, and the magnets would be arranged on either side along the path of the ball. At the point of the "blue hole", I simulate the relat ive motion of a ball falling off a ramp by allowing the ball to continue in the circular path, but positioning the last magnet in a curve in the opposite direction. Think of the magnets in parallel S shapes, with one curve fitting the circular path of th e ball, and the other bending away from that curve. Once the ball travels in a circular path, it can be attached to a wheel, and multiple balls embedded in the wheel to give the effective power of multiple ramps per revolution. It would also be possible to position multiple magents assemblies around the wheel to further increase power. To test the concept, I built a wheel with a pair of 6 inch diameter plexiglass disks mounted on an axle with a bearing assembly purchased at a skateboard shop ($1.50 each). Three lines are drawn from the center of the disks to the outside, spaced 120 deg rees apart. Near the outside of the disks a small hole is drilled at each of the three lines. This allows three 3/4 inch ball bearings to be equally spaced around the perimeter. Three screws pull the two disks together, holding the ball bearings in pla ce. With no magnet assemblies, a small push will make the disk spin for about a minute before stopping. The disk can be mounted vertically or horizontally. For magnet assemblies, I used the Blanton-style 4-magnet long parallel ramps. I built some wooden fixtures with screw adjustments to allow each magnet to be positioned individually. I can change the curve formed by the magnets, and the spacing between t he magnet assemblies. I can also adjust the orientation of the magnet assembly pair relative to the disk. There are lots of adjustments possible, yet it is all very solid. In operation, it gives no signs of OU. I have tried varying all the magnet positions many ways. I have also tried straight "Watson" style angled ramps, and have tried both weak and strong magnets. I also tried replacing the ball bearings with magnets, trying both orientations (attracting or repelling the magnet assemblies). This gives the most entertaining behavior. The wheel rotates for about 30 seconds, gradually slowing, then it looks like it is about to stop but often gets one last kick before going into a long sequence of decaying oscillations. But it ends up just a good demo of conservation of energy. There seems to be no difference between vertical or horizontal orientation either. I do not have a way to give it a calibrated push to get it started. To the limits of my abilities to push it consistantly, it takes about the same amount of time to stop with or without the magnets. But with the magnets, about half the time is in rotati on, and the other half oscillating back and forth once it is not going fast enough to escape the last magnet. There is no way to judge if a) my approach is fundamentally flawed, b) I have too much friction, or c) I just never found the magic adjustment point. I purchased some of the magnetic film (from Edmund Scientific) to help see the magnetic field lines, but it was really not much help. So, it looks like my attempt at fame and fortune are down the drain. Please spare me the comments about not following Greg's step-by-step directions. You could say that this approach was just not very SMOT. -- Bob Horst X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 00:00:42 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:57:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: Minn-Kota motors Resent-Message-ID: <"8xI683.0.TM3.VYDgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3900 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I just came back from K-mart were I carefully read the marketing stuff on Minn-Kota trolling motors. Quick review for those who haven't read the posts from about 9 months ago. Joseph Newman working for thirty years on overunity technology involving motors with big windings of ( miles ) long thin wire and high frequencys. His work clearly indicates overunity but as far as I know he has not demonstrated a self running device. He announced that he is sueing some ex-employees and several companies for "Stealing his technology". These companies produce electric trolling motors and electric lawn mowers and maybe other things. Minn-kota was named. Recently On Wed, 4 Jun 1997 "WESLY" wrote: > To all: I was in KMART today and happened to see a display rack of > Minn-Kotta trolling motors. Joe Newman is in litigation with this company > for stealing his technology. I have not been able to find out what this > technology is except it seem to have very wide claims that apparently cover > any invention which has "greater external output than external input". To > paraphrase I would take this to mean that anyone who developes a O/U device > would be infringing on Joes patent regardless of whether it resembled the > newman motor or not. My understanding could be completley wrong, I sure > hope it is. > Anyway, to the point. I looked in the owners manuel and noticed that they > had a schematic of the motor. It looked like a standard motor with a > commutator, stator magnets and windings on the rotor. It also has a motor > speed control. The one thing unusual is that it varies the pulse duration > which gives it more efficiency at low speeds, nothing new here that I can > see. Using short pulses to increase efficiency has been used for years so > there must be something hidden that is not shown in the schematic. Is there > somebody, anybody that can explain what this motor does that is related to > the Newman motor. This motor just doesn't appear to be that big of deal. > If it is then we all should know what it is so that we can modify our own > motors to do the same thing!! > Thanks WES > PS HAS ANYONE PURCHASED AND TESTED ONE OF THESE UNITS? And in response on Wed, 4 Jun 1997 woods@most.weird.com (Greg A. Woods) wrote: > I wouldn't go looking for phantom parts. These are likely just exactly > what you've described, with a pulse chopping circuit to cut the current > when the load is light. According to the construction article where I > first read of them many years ago they can save significant amounts of > power in certain applications (long running constant load?). > > There's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary with these things -- they > still draw real kilowatts/hour. > > If this mfgr and/or K-Mart actually make claims about giving back more > power than they consume, then perhaps some lawyer can make a bundle on > litigation against them for false claims.... ;-) Then on wed 5 Jun 1997 josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) wrote: > Dear Greg/Wes, > > At this point in time I can state that the documentation assembled by > Joseph Newman regarding Minn-Kota's theft of his technology is both > substantial and impressive. It is no "accident" that the same Dr. > Hastings who worked closely with Joseph Newman for a number of years > has also been a consultant to Minn-Kota. While I (personally) would > like very much to provide you with such documentation to satisfy your > curiosity, it has been requested that this not be done for legal > reasons. And now for my two cents worth: Minn-Kota claims that their models which include their Maximizer technology allow it to run up to 5 times longer on a charge. According to a simple chart the benefit is greater the lower the speed setting. They do not claim overunity, just a better product. They also mentioned that in 1993 they were the first to use RF motor control. A typical chopper control uses 20khz. RF is much higher. Their motor looks normal. It does not resemble Joseph Newman's. I think that if one of these motors were used to drive a generator at 25% power then it would drive itself and a small load. If it couldn't then that fact and the motor using thick wires would totally separate it from Joseph Newman's device. If it did work, which I think it would, then how does it stack up against Joseph Newman's device? It uses a normal motor, Newman's is exotic. It runs itself, Newman's does not ( correct me if I'm wrong ). It would not only be very differently built but also works much better. ( If you improve a patented device by 30% or more then you can patent the improvement. ) I know you can patent a device. I think you can patent a process. I *don't* think you can patent a concept. I'm real sure you *can't* patent a wave form. And now for my point: You take a big clunky motor and feed it a wave form which makes it run at 25% capacity and it is way overunity. The secret is just a *wave form*. Works on a simple motor. Lots of different circuits could be used to generate the wave form. Where's the patent infringement? Learning how to do something from Newman is not neccessarily the same as stealing his patent. Instead of sueing these companies why doesn't Newman take the improvement ( how to apply it to a normal motor ) and use it to fi nish his device and go into production. You don't even need a patent to make lots of dough selling these devices. Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /***********************************************************/ /* Anything said by me on this list that I have originated */ /* is in the public domain. PS There's no money in energy. */ /* - At least not after everybody owns an energy device! - */ /****** *****************************************************/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 00:05:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:03:13 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 03:01:13 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Subject: 3 SMOTs linked - Test passed Resent-Message-ID: <"ehJwv3.0.Zy2.mcDgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8451 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 19/06/1997 02:34:00 , Greg wrote : << So far 3 others have reported success at rollaways. One has reported a 6 loop rollaround. Getting interested??????? -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ >> Hi Greg and all SMOT'ters, Today, I have a good new.... I have experimented the SMOT V2.0, It works well, the ball run smoothly with less acceleration than the mark 1 but more continous speed, the drop seems better, and the best thing is that the adjustements are very easy. Yesterday, also, we ( the Naudin's family...) have succeed in three SMOT linking tests...... You will find all videos and pictures about the SMOT V2 and about "the three SMOTs linking test" in my web site at : http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/smotidx.htm Today, I work on the RMOD device ( the schemes and pictures are in my web server ) and I hope that I shall finish the testing soon...... GREG : Have you some videos or pictures about the 6 loop rollaround test ? Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 00:04:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:02:02 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 03:01:19 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: hamdix@verisoft.com.tr Subject: Re : Netscape bug Resent-Message-ID: <"WJJaJ3.0.Lu2.gbDgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8449 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 19/06/1997 07:47:11 , Hamdi Ucar wrote : << Ok, I got the SMOT Mk II Beta 1, Thank you Greg. Still I trying to scale up the design according my big magnet size. Regards, Hamdi Ucar >> Hi Hamdi, We use the same magnets size (40x25x10 mm anisotrop ceramic magnets) , look at my web site for the appropriated size of the SMOT V 2.0.... Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 05:30:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:26:28 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:26:00 +0000 From: Craig Haynie Reply-To: ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com.erp To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: A Confirming Closed-Loop SMOT??? References: Resent-Message-ID: <"HURDh1.0.cJ4.pLIgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8464 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Epitaxy: Do I understand correctly, from reading your report on Greg Watson's page, that you've also achieved a complete closed-loop with your SMOT system, have rotated the device 90 degrees in 4 directions, have set the device up in several places over a 20 mile area, and have placed it on a soft surface to damped vibrations, and in all these cases, you get a Closed Loop??? If so, what is the maximum number of revolutions that you've achieved? What is the total time period of a revolution? What is the total track distance? Thanks, Craig Haynie X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 19:09:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:07:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:05:35 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Bloody full moon Resent-Message-ID: <"GOWkV1.0._R6.xNUgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8509 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi - > > I just cut my hand with a circular saw while > preparing a new wood base for the SMOT. Ouch! I hate when that happens. Glad there's no serious damage. How's that RMOD doing? Rolling on its own yet? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 19:32:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:30:52 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:29:51 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT mag array design Resent-Message-ID: <"ze-Zj1.0.t22.RjUgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8511 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris - I'm having the same problem with the one-ramp rollaway design. Doesn't show any interest at all in working. Nice back-pull on the ball after dropoff no matter what I do. When I see how that works, I can't help but think "J-ramp exit", but I don't have muc h time to spare hacking these things. Have to pay the bills, and SMOTs don't help much. I do have another unit that's almost a half meter long consisting of 6 pairs of nose-to-tail staggered (Blanton-type, or whoever - they can share the award when the Nobel for "best new rogue SMOT magnet array" is handed out) arrays, and it will reliably c arry a ball up 10-12mm or slightly more above the level start. I'll have to attack it with the hacksaw and put a nice rollaway drop on the end of it to see if that works. My single ramp only climbs 6mm. Maybe not enough altitude for the drop to clear the fields. That long ramp makes me wonder how many arrays you could just keep linking. If I had more magnets, I'd just keep going and find out. After a while if it just kept going and you're laying track across your neighbor's driveway, you'd kinda have to stop and say "ok, I guess it's overunity now..." But until I see that or a good solid repeatable rollaway at start-level or higher, I still have serious doubts about all of this. Sometimes I *really* feel like I'm wasting my time. BTW, you should do something nice for Soo for helping you with your SMOTs. My girlfriend just sneers at me when she finds me "playing with my marbles again". Perhaps we've simply lost our marbles for good this time? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 04:20:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:19:48 -0700 (PDT) From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Latching molecule; Perovskite Crystals Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:08:44 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net Lines: 77 Resent-Message-ID: <"Iv6vC2.0.2k.HNHgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3901 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Unfortunately I deleted the thread where this this came up. This is from the 1994 Ramtron Data book; a way to have a latching molecule: "The ferroelectric effect is the ability of a material to retain an electric polarization in the absence of an applied electric field. This stable polarization results form the alignment of internal dipoles within the Perovskite crystal units in the ferr oelectric material. Application of an electric field that exceeds the coercive field of the material will cause this alignment, while reversal of the field reverse the alignment of these internal dipoles. The name FERROELECTRIC derives from the similarity to a ferromagnetic material's ability to exhibit a magnetic polarization in the absence of an applied magnetic field. Ferroelectric materials are insensitive to magnetic fields. The construction of the FRAM memory products also makes them insensitive to practical external electric fields." Here Figure One of a Perovskite Crystal Unit Cell appears. B=Tetra or Pentavalent Atom A=Di or Monvalent Metal Atoms O=Oxygen Atoms. "A" forms a cube, with in which there is a 3D-diamond made of "O". With in "O" is "B" which can snap and hold a "up" or "down" state. "An externally applied electric field will move the center atom into one of the two stable positions shown based upon the direction of the field. Once the external field is removed, the atom remains in a stable position. Since no external electric field or current is required for the ferroelectric material to remain polarized in either state, a memory device can be built for storing digital (binary) data that will not require power to retain information stored within it. By applying the interdisciplinary talents of its staff, Ramtron has developed a complex proprietary thin-film ferroelectric material which is compatible with standard semiconductor fabrication techniques. The nonvolatile storage element in FRAM memories is a capacitor constructed from two metal electrodes and a ferroelectric thin film inserted between the transistor and metallization layers of a CMOS process. Data stored in a ferroelectric memory cell can be read by applying an electric field to the capacitor. If the applied field is in the direction to switch the internal dipoles, more charge will be moved than if the dipoles are not reversed. Sense amplifi ers built into the FRAM chip measure this charge and produce either a zero or one on the output pin. After the read takes place, the chip automatically restores the correct data to the cell. Another aspect of the Ramtron ferroelectric material - its very high dielectric constant - permits the very efficient construction of capacitor elements of the chip." The parts describe may be covered by one or more of the following patents: US Patent 4,873,664; 4,893,272; 5,005,102; 5,024,964; 5,142,437 -- NOTE: I have a new e-mail address: bpaddock@csonline.net For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 04:50:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Jun 97 07:45:03 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Cincinnati RR and Water Anomalies. Resent-Message-ID: <"HXMeq1.0.jY1.1nHgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8462 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Terry, > I see you're going to try the wedge magnet design. I guess that > Greg's endorsement carried more weight than when I tried to get > you to do it. I tried to get everyone to try this with my very > first SMOT post. You could have saved yourself a l ot of time and > trouble. No one listens to a crackpot Ufology nut, I guess. > Rubbish. Obviously quite a few people have listened to you - including Jed and Greg and me. But I had to go for the basic design first, because otherwise I'd end up trying everything in sight. Now that your array design has been developed by Greg into something very clear, I'm going for it. Look, your idea has become part of the design - and that can't really be said for anyone else except Greg. And you are complaining? Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 05:08:19 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:57:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:20:36 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Orders Confirmation Resent-Message-ID: <"Tmdcz.0.QG3.CwHgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3902 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Sorry to say, but my account wasn't setup to record senders details on inward TTs. This means that I have received money for SMOT kits, but don't know where it came from. This problem is NOW fixed. It wasn't meant to happen. Banks!!!!!!!! If you have wired / TTed money to me, could you please reply by private post with your details. I will match your replies with the deposits and get it all sorted out. I expect to start shipping SMOT Mk II kits by next weekend. The existing ramps have been modified and I have ordered new perspex bases. Good to see Jean-Louis has confirmed that the new setup requires very little adjustments. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 06:33:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:29:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:30:26 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: Attempt at a new type of RMOD References: <33A8D3DE.2129@loc1.tandem.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"lVwHF2.0.Gb7.mGJgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo. com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3904 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Bob Horst wrote: > > Last weekend, I attempted to build a Rotating OU Device of my own > design. Unfortunately it shows no signs of OU, so I am giving up -- > maybe this will be of some help to others, at least giving you one > idea > not to try. > > The idea for the device is as follows. Think of a ramp bent downward > over a cylinder. The ball would take a circular path, and the magnets > would be arranged on either side along the path of the ball. At the > point of the "blue hole", I simulate the relative motion of a ball > falling off a ramp by allowing the ball to continue in the circular > path, but positioning the last magnet in a curve in the opposite > direction. Think of the magnets in parallel S shapes, with one curve > fitting the circular path of the ball, and the other bending away from > that curve. Once the ball travels in a circular path, it can be > attached to a wheel, and multiple balls embedded in the wheel to give > the effective power of multiple ramps per revolution. It would also > be > possible to position multiple magents assemblies around the wheel to > further increase power. > > To test the concept, I built a wheel with a pair of 6 inch diameter > plexiglass disks mounted on an axle with a bearing assembly purchased > at > a skateboard shop ($1.50 each). Three lines are drawn from the center > of the disks to the outside, spaced 120 degrees apart. Near the > outside > of the disks a small hole is drilled at each of the three lines. This > allows three 3/4 inch ball bearings to be equally spaced around the > perimeter. Three screws pull the two disks together, holding the ball > bearings in place. With no magnet assemblies, a small push will make > the disk spin for about a minute before stopping. The disk can be > mounted vertically or horizontally. > > For magnet assemblies, I used the Blanton-style 4-magnet long parallel > ramps. I built some wooden fixtures with screw adjustments to allow > each magnet to be positioned individually. I can change the curve > formed by the magnets, and the spacing between the magnet assemblies. > I > can also adjust the orientation of the magnet assembly pair relative > to > the disk. There are lots of adjustments possible, yet it is all very > solid. > > In operation, it gives no signs of OU. I have tried varying all the > magnet positions many ways. I have also tried straight "Watson" style > angled ramps, and have tried both weak and strong magnets. > > I also tried replacing the ball bearings with magnets, trying both > orientations (attracting or repelling the magnet assemblies). This > gives the most entertaining behavior. The wheel rotates for about 30 > seconds, gradually slowing, then it looks like it is about to stop but > often gets one last kick before going into a long sequence of decaying > oscillations. But it ends up just a good demo of conservation of > energy. There seems to be no difference between vertical or > horizontal > orientation either. > > I do not have a way to give it a calibrated push to get it started. > To > the limits of my abilities to push it consistantly, it takes about the > same amount of time to stop with or without the magnets. But with the > magnets, about half the time is in rotation, and the other half > oscillating back and forth once it is not going fast enough to escape > the last magnet. > > There is no way to judge if a) my approach is fundamentally flawed, b) > I > have too much friction, or c) I just never found the magic adjustment > point. I purchased some of the magnetic film (from Edmund Scientific) > to > help see the magnetic field lines, but it was really not much help. > > So, it looks like my attempt at fame and fortune are down the drain. > Please spare me the comments about not following Greg's step-by-step > directions. You could say that this approach was just not very SMOT. > > -- Bob Horst Hi Bob, I to have tried something similiar. It didn't work. The only way I have been able to get rotary operation is by the method shown on my site. Maybe there is something in the gravity shielding as suggested by some. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 06:31:07 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:29:26 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:34:39 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Phase 5 not reached? References: <970618214218_72240.1256_EHB88-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"SFcVP3.0.qa7.lGJgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3903 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To: Vortex > > Greg's home page has messages like: Its not my site. > Sorry... Phase 5 is not yet reached! > > That's http://home.worldonline.nl/~catware/phase5.html. Phase five is > when the ball goes around and around without stopping. > > Greg: does this mean your home page is not finished? Or does it mean > you have never achieved Phase 5, and you retract your earlier claims?!? I have achieved a rollaround as claimed. Epitaxy has olso now reported a rollaround. > The home page also says phases 3 and 4 have not been reached. I don't > get it. > > - Jed HI Jed, Check out my site for the latest reported test results. Epitaxy's report is there. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 06:31:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:29:43 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:46:30 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: "Rollaway" definition References: <970618200029_72240.1256_EHB86-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"bD4ZT2.0.Mc7.tGJgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8471 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > > GREG: I know you are busy, but please tell us: > > 1. Are you sure your SMOT Mk II exit ramp is level or slightly above the > entrance ramp? Yes. > 2. Have you removed the magnets and placed the ball on the exit track to see > if it rolls away? Have you tried giving the exit track a slight bias back > towards the ramp? Yes. Jed I jave been doing his for quite a lot of time now. I have posted many previous times on my test setup. > 3. Have you tried it with the exit ramp slightly above the entrance, > say 1 mm? No. My design goal with the SMOT Mk II ramp is a simple to adjust lift and drop ramp which can do a small rollaway. > 4. How far away does the ball roll? The average rollaway is approx 150mm. Not much, I admit. > JEAN-LOUIS: > > In your home page movie, does the ball ever drop to a level below the starting > point? When it rolls out of the picture, is it level with or below the > starting point? From the drawing, I think it ends up 3 mm below the starting > point. I asked you this before, and so did some other people. > > - Jed Hi Jed, If you checkout Jean-Louis's site you will see his qualifications on the rollaway test he did on the Mk I ramps. If you checkout my site, you will see two reports of increased height rollaways. You will also be able to read Epitaxy's report on his multi circuit rollaround results. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 06:49:55 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:47:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 08:40:53 -0500 (CDT) From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn-Kota motors Reply-To: w9sz@prairienet.org Resent-Message-ID: <"B-yE02.0.LO1.pXJgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3906 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > > >And now for my point: > >You take a big clunky motor and feed it a wave form >which makes it run at 25% capacity and it is way overunity. >The secret is just a *wave form*. Works on a simple motor. >Lots of different circuits could be used to generate the >wave form. > >Where's the patent infringement? Learning how to do >something from Newman is not neccessarily the same as >stealing his patent. Instead of sueing these companies why >doesn't Newman take the improvement ( how to apply it to a >normal motor ) and use it to finish his device and go into >production. You don't even need a patent to make lots >of dough selling these devices. > > > Scott Becker > skot@compumedia.com NASA designed an electronic circuit to chop the voltage to a motor at appropriate parts of the cycle (AC motor). This technology was evidently used on the Space Shuttle. It used an Intel 8022 microcontroller with on-chip A/D converter. The basic circuit appeared (complete with the 8022 assembler source code) in the 1983 Intel Microcontroller Handbook. I do not know if it was patented; however, the information was made freely available evidently by NASA and Intel. Zack -- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 07:58:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:55:30 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:58:38 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Minn-Kota motors Resent-Message-ID: <"l3y9o.0.Wj4.WXKgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3907 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >I just came back from K-mart were I carefully read the >marketing stuff on Minn-Kota trolling motors. > snip--- > >You take a big clunky motor and feed it a wave form >which makes it run at 25% capacity and it is way overunity. >The secret is just a *wave form*. Works on a simple motor. >Lots of different circuits could be used to generate the >wave form. > >Where's the patent infringement? Learning how to do >something from Newman is not neccessarily the same as >stealing his patent. Instead of sueing these companies why >doesn't Newman take the improvement ( how to apply it to a >normal motor ) and use it to finish his device and go into >production. You don't even need a patent to make lots >of dough selling these devices. > > > Scott Becker > skot@compumedia.com > Dear Scott, I repost (from above) what I had posted earlier: > >> Dear Greg/Wes, >> >> At this point in time I can state that the documentation assembled by >> Joseph Newman regarding Minn-Kota's theft of his technology is both >> substantial and impressive. It is no "accident" that the same Dr. >> Hastings who worked closely with Joseph Newman for a number of years >> has also been a consultant to Minn-Kota. While I (personally) would >> like very much to provide you with such documentation to satisfy your >> curiosity, it has been requested that this not be done for legal >> reasons. If you would like a detailed explanation, I suggest that you contact Joseph Newman directly at (601) 947-7147. He is the only individual that can release specific information re Minn-Kota. [Best times are usually 9:30-10:30am/9-10pm C.T.] I will state t hat Joseph Newman is concentrating his efforts on raising the capital necessary to initiate commercial production of his technology. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space." --- MICHAEL FARADAY X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 09:15:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:11:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:11:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: A Confirming Closed-Loop SMOT??? Resent-Message-ID: <"HpKXy1.0.uj.teLgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8478 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Epitaxy, Craig Haynie had some good questions. I also have some questions: 1. What are the individual neo mag sizes? Mag stacking arrangement? 2. How did you make the 90 deg turn connections between the ramps? >From what you've said about the ball jumping off the track and sticking to the metal back plate, it sounds like what Greg, myself and others noticed. That the mag field strength is greater on the metal plate edges by a factor or 3 to 4 times greater. The ball is just seeking the greater mag field. Also the 1/8" steel backing plate seems to be saturated by the very strong neo magnets. Have you tried adding more metal backing plates to delute the mag field strenght at the plate edges? Congradulations! and thank you for sharing your research experiments. Thanks, Michael Randall At 07:26 AM 6/19/97 +0000, you wrote: >Epitaxy: > >Do I understand correctly, from reading your report on Greg Watson's >page, that you've also achieved a complete closed-loop with your SMOT >system, have rotated the device 90 degrees in 4 directions, have set the >device up in several places over a 20 mile area, and have placed it on a >soft surface to damped vibrations, and in all these cases, you get a >Closed Loop??? > >If so, what is the maximum number of revolutions that you've achieved? >What is the total time period of a revolution? What is the total track >distance? > >Thanks, > >Craig Haynie > > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 10:03:49 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:01:35 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:05:18 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: harti@shell2.ba.best.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Did J.L. Naudin succeed ? Cc: newman-l@emachine.com Resent-Message-ID: <"2nIFA3.0.mX3.jNMgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3908 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, I just viewed his new page at: http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/rmodmk2.htm Did he get a cloosed loop RMOD running ? If his GIF -Animation is true, it seems so... Good luck Jean Louis ! Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 11:15:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:14:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:13:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: SMOT mag array design Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, gwatson@microtronics.com.au Resent-Message-ID: <"4fuJn2.0.n67.fRNgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3909 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: >Terry, > > > I see you're going to try the wedge magnet design. I guess that > > Greg's endorsement carried more weight than when I tried to get > > you to do it. I tried to get everyone to try this with my very > > first SMOT post. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and > > trouble. No one listens to a crackpot Ufology nut, I guess. > > > >Rubbish. Obviously quite a few people have listened to you - including >Jed and Greg and me. But I had to go for the basic design first, >because otherwise I'd end up trying everything in sight. Now that your >array design has been developed by Greg into something very clear, I'm >going for it. Look, your idea has become part of the design - and that >can't really be said for anyone else except Greg. And you are >complaining? > >Chris > Pardon me, but since this has come up as an issue: I wasn't looking for credit on this, but if credit is being given, well... The magnet array configuration in question was first posted by me, on April 10, to Greg and his list. Greg, and others who were recipients, can perhaps verify that this is authentic. Michael Randall tried my setup on that same day, and posted positive res ults. (BTW, Michael was the first to report a working test of Greg's ramp). Here is a copy of my original message. It's a long post; I've snipped it and left only headers and the relevant sections: >---------- >From: Dan Quickert >Sent: Thursday, April 10, 1997 12:12 AM >To: 'gwatson@microtronics.com.au' >Cc: 'epitaxy@localaccess.com'; 'dequickert@ucdavis.edu'; 'catware@worldonline.nl'; 'billb@eskimo.com'; 'harti@harti.com'; 'puthoff@aol.com'; 'little@eden.com'; 'bshannon@tiac.net'; 'jnaudin509@aol.com'; 'mrandall@earthlink.net' >Subject: RE: Simple OU Device > >Hi Greg, > [snip] >Anyway it's some 3/8" aluminum U-channel, a bunch of Radio Shack square >ceramic magnets, a steel ball and masking tape. Varied spacing of the >magnets seemed not to work as well as just varying the field - first pair is 1 >magnet, second is 2 together, etc.; set with *no* spacing between them. Did >not stagger pairs (unlike the patent)(ref U.S. patent 4,215,330). The last pair >is not parallel. I must admit it took more than 10 minutes all told! > >The key to getting release at the end, at least for my primitive setup, was >to provide a guide to change the ball's forward momentum toward a downward >fall, rather than just letting it drop. [snip] >If your device is similar, have you tried putting one at right angles (or >whatever) to the output of the other, with a guide to help the ball make >the turn? > >Thanks, Greg, for being so open with this idea and its development. > >Dan Quickert > > and later that day, in response to Michael Randall's query: >--------- >From: Dan Quickert >Sent: Thursday, April 10, 1997 9:20 AM >To: 'Michael Randall' >Cc: epitaxy@localaccess.com; catware@worldonline.nl; billb@eskimo.com; >harti@harti.com; puthoff@aol.com; little@eden.com; bshannon@tiac.net; >jnaudin509@aol.com; gwatson@microtronics.com.au; 'dequickert@ucdavis.edu' >Subject: RE: Simple OU Device > >Hi Michael. To answer your questions: > >>In your design was the north poles all on one side and south poles all on >>the opposite side of the track? > >yes > >>Were they opposite each other and not staggered? > >yes - and there is no space between them. They are Radio Shack flat ceramic, about 1" x >1" x 3/16". There were only 3 sets: #1 set with 1 magnet; #2 with 2 stacked per side; #3 >with 5 stacked. #3 was angled so the far end was farther apart than the en d near >magnets #2. Also a cardboard 'shield' was placed over the insides of the #3 set to keep >the ball from getting too close, as this area was beyond the end of the guiding track. > >>In my design they were like the patent and I could accelerate the ball >>through the course for and easy exit. With more magnets stacked, the ball >>could go up a slope and then drop. I'll try your design. >> >>Currently building a flat track with two straight sections for a continuous >>loop. Magnetic powered perpetual motion for a nice executive toy. But for 10 hp? > >Greg's suggestion that we focus on the parameters for leaving the magnets, and figuring >a way to have a smooth, adjustable graduated magnetic field, are important for being >able to scale this up. > >A practical 10HP will come when we figure out exactly what's happening here and how, and >use it in a different physical embodiment - unless you want a very large machine that >has huge PM's rolling cannonballs up slopes ! > >Let us know how your dual flat track comes out! > >Dan > Clear enough? Dan Quickert X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 11:41:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:01:30 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: Jean-Louis Naudin Cc: vortex Subject: My SMOT II setup Resent-Message-ID: <"V6a0B3.0.p03.gjNgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8487 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Jean-Louis, I think you gone too straight up when upscaling the design. I found your array size too long. I accomplish my setup with a shorter size of 3 x 40 mm. My arrangement is 1+3+4. without the "S" shape on the exit I got roll away with near 1 mm penalty. Ramp r ise = 26.5 mm and the drop away height is 18 mm. So I have about 8 mm to obtain level roll away with a proper exit shape. Surprizingly I found the spacing between magnets is 55 mm, close to the your setup. I have seen your RMOD work. I think the way to access the extra energy is unequal time period entering and leaving the fields. So your design is not suitable for acceleration and deceleration of the balls because of the angular momentum of the wheel. Did you tried a one arm setup with the ball weight is balanced with short arm but heavier counter-balance? ball o-----------.--(O) counter balance axis Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 12:11:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Jun 97 15:04:42 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: SMOT mag array design Resent-Message-ID: <"kLeTH2.0.vf4.mDOgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8490 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Dan, Well, thanks for the clarification. My problem now is that I've almost precisely duplicated the array and ramp design posted by Greg. I, and more to the point, Soo, cannot persuade it to work, despite trying all kinds of magnet positions. Three possibi lities come to mind: 1. The magnet height relative to the ball may be wrong; mine has the top of the ball just about 1mm above the top of the magnets, the magnets being 10mm high and the ball being 12mm diameter (possibly 12.5mm). 2. The magnet array is identical, but the magnet strength may not be. 3. I take the 53mm ramp length as being the length from the start of the slope to the end of the ramp, defining the latter as being the tiny bit of vertical between the two halves of the S-curve. I'm using 10mm high ramps, 13mm wide (outside measurement ). The configuration I'm talking about is, of course, the 5-4-3-2-1 wedge. Can anyone help with this? Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 11:38:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:06:16 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Torque on entering the return flux Resent-Message-ID: <"-udER2.0.j43.XkNgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8488 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, While adjusting the new SMOT II, I noticed that my 25 mm ball try to rearrange its poles by turning around while entering the return flux on the exit below the magnet. I think this is the proof of the magnetization of the ball while climbing the ramp and carrying this polarization while passing the return flux. If the ball is magnetized progressively in the climbing area there will be no penalty while leaving the main field on the exit (entering and leaving energies will be equals). But the asymmetry come s from the magnetic state of ball on the leaving the return flux at the low end and reentering the return flux at the exit area. So due to asymmetry, ball may experience more pull on the gradient of the return flux of the low end than the high end. I also noticed a small repelling effect when the ball is getting far enough from the exit. I think it is possible to optimize the setup according arguments above. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 13:35:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:27:28 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:19:43 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Bloody full moon Resent-Message-ID: <"85xE3.0.Ke7.lOPgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8491 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, This is a new proof for the full moon interaction with the human psychology. I just cut my hand with a circular saw while preparing a new wood base for the SMOT. I needed the hospital manipulation. Fortunately the saw did not cut tendons and nerves. I am still able to typing with two hands. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 13:36:47 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:35:14 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:33:09 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, harti@bbtt.de Subject: Re : Did J.L. Naudin succeed ? Resent-Message-ID: <"pG-JC3.0.N4.zVPgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3913 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 19/06/1997 20:54:12 , you wrote : << Hi, I just viewed his new page at: http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/rmodmk2.htm Did he get a cloosed loop RMOD running ? If his GIF -Animation is true, it seems so... Good luck Jean Louis ! Regards, Stefan. >> Hi Stephan, Thanks for the encouragements, I have begun the RMOD v2.0 test phase this evening, the adjustment must be accurate to obtain a continously closed loop. I have some problem with the material used for the ball ( steel ). I need to find the good material for the moving part ( the balls ) which have a B/H curve with a low saturation and low permeabilty. Because when the ball pass through the high flux density zone ( just in front of the "blue hole", see my QField), the ball must be completly saturated ( magneticaly ). The Steel ball that I have used have a saturation at about 5000 A/m - 1.6 T. Inside my curved ramp the higher flux density ( at the output) is about 0.1 T to 0.15 T ....... :-( If I want to obtain a good magnetic regauging effect (the key of the closed loop), I need to find a ferromagnetic material which saturates around 0.1 T in the case of my RMOD V2 configuration...... If someone knows this kind of magnetic material, his answer is welcome...... Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 13:54:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:46:05 +0200 From: Ronald de Mol Organization: World Online To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: Vortex Subject: Re: Phase 5 not reached? References: <970618214218_72240.1256_EHB88-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZA4UP2.0.xw1.fgPgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8493 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Greg's home page has messages like: > > Sorry... Phase 5 is not yet reached! > > That's http://home.worldonline.nl/~catware/phase5.html. Phase five is when the > ball goes around and around without stopping. > > Greg: does this mean your home page is not finished? Or does it mean you have > never achieved Phase 5, and you retract your earlier claims?!? > > The home page also says phases 3 and 4 have not been reached. I don't get it. > > - Jed Hi Jed, Sorry for the confusion. The phase skipping is because there were 4 phases original, but were later changed to 6 phases, and everybody suddenly jumped to phase 5 and 6 in design. If I find some time I will update the pages. I will also change the (bad choice of the) name of the pages. -- Ronald de Mol. http://home.worldonline.nl/~catware X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 14:20:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:16:51 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:16:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: SMOT mag array design Resent-Message-ID: <"Ku0nJ1.0.B22.27Qgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8495 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: >Dan, > >Well, thanks for the clarification. My problem now is that I've almost >precisely duplicated the array and ramp design posted by Greg. I, and >more to the point, Soo, cannot persuade it to work, despite trying all >kinds of magnet positions. Three possibilities come to mind: > >1. The magnet height relative to the ball may be wrong; mine has the >top of the ball just about 1mm above the top of the magnets, the magnets >being 10mm high and the ball being 12mm diameter (possibly 12.5mm). > >2. The magnet array is identical, but the magnet strength may not be. > [snip] Chris, Magnet strength makes a vast difference. What kind are you using? If ceramic, do you know what grade? That question has been asked about Greg's magnets but I haven't seen an answer yet. The lower grade ceramics seem to work better for me. I've a bunch of Radio Shack mags that are too tall, would like to cut them in half but don't have the tooling for that. But then there's Epitaxy's reported roll-around with NdFeB! When you say it doesn't work, do you mean you can't get a level rollaway, or not even close? In the small amount of time I've had to revisit this configuration, I haven't gotten a level rollaway either. Close, but no cigar. Suggestions: Do play with magnet height. Can make a big difference. The higher the magnets, the farther away the ball will be on release, thus better rollaway - but trickier balance necessary for release. Lower magnets make for better release when you're going for hig h lift. One thing that I remember from my first attempts in April, was that it seemed to be easier to get release if the end stack of magnets diverged out a bit. So facing the ball the magnet array would be parallel, until the end where the magnets spread out and are farther apart. This necessitates the last magnet stack be even larger to make a uniformly increasing field. Haven't tried that recently, but it might be worth looking at. Dan X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 13:15:53 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:15:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: bailey@best.com Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:18:14 -0800 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: pgb@padrak.com (Patrick Bailey) Subject: IECEC 1997 Innovative Concepts Sessions and Papers Resent-Message-ID: <"_dbcR3.0.6c.4DPgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3912 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com http://www.padrak.com/ine/CT06.html The Expected Program of Sessions, Papers, and Authors, as of June 19, of: Sessions CT-06: "Innovative Concepts in Energy Conversion Technologies". The 32nd IECEC, sponsored this year by the AIChE. These areas include "cold fusion", "space energy", "transmutation", "rotational magnetics", "Tesla technologies", "HAARP", etc. The conference begins on July 28 in Honolulu, HI. Dr. Patrick G. Bailey President, Institute for New Energy http://www.padrak.com/ine/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 11:42:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:40:52 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:38:20 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Did J.L. Naudin succeed ? References: <199706191705.TAA23017@mail.bbtt.de> Resent-Message-ID: <"7WfFL.0.xz.pqNgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3910 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Stefan Hartmann wrote: > > Hi, > > I just viewed his new page at: > > http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/rmodmk2.htm > > Did he get a cloosed loop RMOD running ? > > If his GIF -Animation is true, it seems so... Looking at the GIF animation, it seems that the disk is turing the wrong way, or am I really confused? The RMOD2 diagram just below the animated .GIF shows that the disk should rotate away from the max flux area, which is the upper most set of magnets. The .GIF animation appears to show the direction of rotation being in the opposit direction, with the steel balls running into the maximum flux end of the magnet arrays. So, is the animation only an illustration, or is it intended to document the actual operation of the device? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 11:53:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:48:38 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Did J.L. Naudin succeed ?] Resent-Message-ID: <"_rHiF1.0.tv3.F_Ngp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3911 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I think I understand why I was confused after looking at J.L. Naudin's web page. The diagram just below the animated .GIF shows the magnets aranged differently than does the scanned photo just below the diagram. In the diagram, the max flux end of the array is shown at the 'top' of the disk, while the scanned photo just below this 3D diagram shows the max flux end of the magnet array being at the bottom of the vertical part of the magnet array. If you look at the animated .GIF, and then refer to the diagram below, they appear to disagree with one another. Looking at the actual photo just below the 3D diagram clears up any confusion this may create. In fact, all the drawings show the max flux end of the magnet being at the top of the disk, but the actual photos show the max flux end of the array being on the side. This may cause some initial confusion (it sure had me confused for a few minutes!). It might help to add a few comments about this to the diagrams. Message-ID: <33A9A6CC.422A@tiac.net> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:38:20 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Did J.L. Naudin succeed ? References: <199706191705.TAA23017@mail.bbtt.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stefan Hartmann wrote: > > Hi, > > I just viewed his new page at: > > http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/rmodmk2.htm > > Did he get a cloosed loop RMOD running ? > > If his GIF -Animation is true, it seems so... Looking at the GIF animation, it seems that the disk is turing the wrong way, or am I really confused? The RMOD2 diagram just below the animated .GIF shows that the disk should rotate away from the max flux area, which is the upper most set of magnets. The .GIF animation appears to show the direction of rotation being in the opposit direction, with the steel balls running into the maximum flux end of the magnet arrays. So, is the animation only an illustration, or is it intended to document the actual operation of the device? X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 15:08:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:05:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "John Steck" Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:57:41 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: JLN - RMOD Resent-Message-ID: <"uUEyR1.0.nT4.jqQgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8499 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com ok. My curiosity has been prodded enough. First off, if Jean-Louis Naudin's web page is everything it seems, congratulations. Looks to be quite a breakthrough in XMOD development. Although pictures usually tell a thousand words, care to elaborate on any of the details on the performance of this device? (to continue the earlier Monty Python free association, " ...put 'em in the com'fy chair!") Jean-Louis: 1) Does it run continuously or is that just a looped animation? 2) If it is running continuously, what is the estimated RPM? torque? 3) Can the effect be enhanced by scaling? I seem to remember bigger isn't better. 4) Can more than one flight of magnets be used? or will field proximity kill the effect? My apologies if you are in the process of finding these things out. I look forward to hearing more! 8^) -- Quote of the Day: Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. --- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 15:16:37 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:15:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:15:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ddameron@earthlink.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Dave Dameron Subject: Greg's SMOT and rotary motion Resent-Message-ID: <"ThrDp.0.IG5.9-Qgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3914 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I see many similar features of the SMOT as it might be configured for rotary motion and the magnetic wankel rotary engine described in the www. overunity.de page. The Wankel uses an pulsed electromagnet to move the rotor from the high field (close gap) region to the next increasing field part. If the electromagnet was off and the engine was "run", I don't think the inertia of the rotor would move it to the next field ramp. The SMOT used gravity to move the ball from the field instead, so somehow it's different...I'm trying to understand why. ps. Did anyone find a page describing the LED blinky circuit run from a disconnected 9 volt battery? I haven't found it yet. Thanks, Dave X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 21:13:44 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:12:53 -0700 From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn-Kota motors (etc) Date: 19 Jun 1997 23:44:21 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"31UKV2.0.Z06.4DWgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3916 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I subscribed to this list in mid-February; my, how time flies when you're having (mostly) fun! Two things are rather irritating. The first is the way many people lazily ignore Bill's request not to quote whole messages unnecessarily as it costs costs time and money for many. The second is the time given to Joseph Newman's fantasy motor. We all have fantasies about being the one to "crack it", whether for egotistical reasons or the love of mankind. How has one person's fantasy managed to achieve such penetration? If an OU moto r is produced it will most likely come from the well-financed R&D department of a present motor manufacturer, where it would be no surprise to find people who have worked in similar research elsewhere. If an individual successfully built one they could be on every TV channel within a month and flooded with offers of fame and fortune. No patent or whingeing required. I am sure our best chance of OU success lies in the sort of research unlikely to be taking place in industrial or educational research. Playing with fridge magnets and ball-bearings for example? I will happily pay 50% of the electricity company's charge for the same KW delivered from your OU devices installed in my home and business and I'm sure so would a lot of other people. Who'll be the first to deliver? ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 23:28:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:02:59 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: Rick Monteverde , vortex Subject: Re: Bloody full moon Resent-Message-ID: <"jc8xB.0.Z01.XBYgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8519 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Rick, Thanks to you and to Chris for your wishes. This was a very deep scare on the thumb root. I did not expected such a performance from the saw disk. I hope there no defect will remain inside. The emergency sevice was crowdy as some times ago one vortexian r elated it to the moon. The new ramp is remain unfinished until I able to handle tools. Now the time for making some paper work. I think the SMOT is so fragile so it will be difficult to make experiment directly on it to investigate the the source of its energy. Anyway some clues are coming. As I said in my previous posting "Torque on entering the return flux" the ball histerysis playing some role. I am not sure that the effect is causing a loss or helping to gain energy. I think there is some mechanism which not well described by the magnetism in solid theory. The complexity arise when the ball enter the return flux on the exit still carry its previous magnetisation gained inside the array. the weak return flux does not erase this magnetisation at least in a fra ction of a second. So the negative gradient of the return flux (ball direction is opposite of gradient) could not effectively decelerate the ball on the roll away path. This effect seem to me NOT CONSERVATIVE because the action of the return flux on the l ow end of the array is not symmetric to this and there is no opposite force to slow down the ball on the entry. May the analisys of the M.Schaffer "Magnetic Energy in SMOT" will help to understand the effect that I observed and try to explain above. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 00:03:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:35:29 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Attempt at a new type of RMOD Resent-Message-ID: <"3x6tC2.0.8o1.ZdYgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8522 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, Bob Horst wrote: > Last weekend, I attempted to build a Rotating OU Device of my own > design. Unfortunately it shows no signs of OU, so I am giving up -- > maybe this will be of some help to others, at least giving you one > idea not to try. Greg's design is mostly based on the conversion of the kinetic energy to magnetic one, different speeds and different time intervals. He is always emphasize on it. If it is really key point of extracting the energy, variable speed of the ball while crossi ng the fields are necessary. On the contrary your wheel have a large momentum when comparing it to a single ball. As a result the speed of the wheel will not be changed dramatically by the magnetic forces. Maybe this is the reason of the failure. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 23:01:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:04:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november Reply-To: Steve Ekwall To: Bob Horst cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RMOD 'THINK BACKWARDS:)' Resent-Message-ID: <"R0D_8.0.w67.emXgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8517 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com > > Last weekend, I attempted to build a Rotating OU Device of my own > design. Unfortunately it shows no signs of OU, so I am giving up -- >---big snip on all your work--- (sigh) neat idea though!! :) > So, it looks like my attempt at fame and fortune are down the drain. > Please spare me the comments about not following Greg's step-by-step > directions. You could say that this approach was just not very SMOT. > > -- Bob Horst > Bob, Your two DISK(s) holding the balls (3?) was a brilliant idea..! I was trying to 'melt' or 'balance-pocket' them in. THANKS:) Forget Greg's step-by-step "IF" you've seen/felt the 'Blue-hole' I agree though with Greg's thought on if there is going to be O/u it's going to seem / appear BACKWARDS to us.. that the 'kicker' - literally! >>>>>>>>> shapes around down a spiral, around a tube through its Axis *Won't Do it* that's -normal Magnetisem-.. THANKS for your info on your "two disk's 'Pancakes' model".. The 'Real-Blue-Hole' I think, isn't an Assist, so much as a window of NO ATTRACTION, NO REPULLSION, NO INTERFERENCE..... Hence, you & I, First thought to amplify it (Ah!)... Null=null.. :) and out you go! RMOD or Rotary will need the 'Null-window' so everything that was added+ to it (Velocity,Mass,Momentum(some say heat)) can CONTINUE..as in SMOT 1. It's NOT a PUSH, it's a pull..... It's NOT an ACCELERATION, it's a 'temp' observable gain of height... It's NOT MASS, (I think you were going this direction(?) gained OR Lost.. It's RE-Cycled to a new ENTRY POINT (NOT EXIT POINT). Greg's smot2 or the "stacked (1.2.3.4) array" (I tried that first thing and had GREAT 1st Time Results!), works on an even more 'parallel arrangment' and appears to show BOOST (Bigger Magnet = Bigger Power).. But NO!,..... Before you "QUIT", Turn it UPS IDE DOWN and run it BACKWARDS! Before you "QUIT", Look or Feel the Blue-hole as a 'nothing' ADDITIVE. GIVE it one Last Try BACKWARDS (so to speak). Not up-hill..not down. I myself don't have a Rotory mod X down either.. but every corner I turn 'appears' to work CONTRARY to what I've learn in lifes observations... Hell, With that last line, the RMOD (per Paul Callender) MIGHT even need to BE SQUARE!! :) 'We' do NEED Greg's Blue-hole to GO through. out to in, up to down.. reminds me of the diagram : <-----------------------> what WE WANT (go,go,go) >-----------------------< what 'IT' Wants! (here,here,here) se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX BITE 'Be Infinite to Everything' p.s. where there's smot, there's fire. Greg's old hard to build (well thought out smot1) *IS* showing the smoke! Your description DIDN'T (at least to me) show Dropping OR Exiting through the null BLUE-HOLE in your RMOD.. Did you ou use 'springs' to pus h(?) or pull(?) at the NULL EXIT? Best of luck on your next xxxx X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 23:42:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:41:04 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:50:20 -0700 From: Bob Horst Reply-To: bhorst@loc1.tandem.com Organization: Tandem Computers Inc. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: RMOD 'THINK BACKWARDS:)' References: Resent-Message-ID: <"4pHnN3.0.Mg4.0OYgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8521 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Steve Ekwall wrote: > > NO!,..... Before you "QUIT", Turn it UPSIDE DOWN and run it BACKWARDS! > Before you "QUIT", Look or Feel the Blue-hole as a 'nothing' ADDITIVE. > GIVE it one Last Try BACKWARDS (so to speak). Not up-hill..not down. Yes, I have tried forwards and backwards rotation with many orientations of magnets and orientations of the wheel. When magnets are put between the disks instead of ball bearings and their fields oppose the magnet arrays, I figured it should run backward s. It should have less repulsion entering the field through the blue hole than exiting the field at what is normally the beginning of the ramp. But this did not work either. > RMOD.. Did you ou use 'springs' to push(?) or pull(?) at the NULL EXIT? No, the momentum of the wheel forces the ball to exit the field at the null point. If there was an assymetry in the total energy needed to enter and exit the field, it would gain a small amount of momentum on each pass. From the initial push, the wheel should slow to the speed where the frictional losses exactly equal the extra push from the magnets. Unfortunately that speed seems to be zero RPM. By the way, I just saw JL Naudin's web page (http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/rmodmk2.htm), and it is interesting that he independently came up with an almost identical design to mine. His web page shows an animation of it rotating, but does not act ually claim that it keeps going. Mine will run for 30 seconds after a gentle intial push, but cannot start on its own. Eventually it stops rotating and goes into a damped oscillation until it stops. -- Bob Horst X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 23:52:25 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:57:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Reality slaps in the face - again! ahh:) Resent-Message-ID: <"9tQwF1.0.iZ1.KYYgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3917 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Scott Becker wrote: >----snip---- > Joseph Newman : > He announced that he is sueing some ex-employees > and several companies for "Stealing his technology". > These companies produce electric trolling motors and > electric lawn mowers and "maybe other things." Minn-kota > was named. > > I know you can patent a device. > I think you can patent a process. > I *don't* think you can patent a concept. > I'm real sure you *can't* patent a wave form. Ha, we can pantent the AIR you breath! Sue - Sue - Sue - Sue - Sue... Let's see, my individual reasearch causes(?) me to make a good?! product like a trolling motor (or remove my house from the grid).. Joesph NEWman will now 'SUE' me because he has Lawyers with 'iron tight' I OWN EVERYTHING, ANYTHING Overunity.. (opps not O U, But Perpitual.... NO, NOT PM, But FLEM capacitor Discharge.... opps NO, NOT FCD but (look in form 412 paragraph XII..er.er... Long Wires - Long Wrappings !! Time Travel something=everything!!! period. period period. So it is written, SO IT SHALL BE!! (lot of writing though - good penmenship??) Glad I'm not his Lawyer -eh Oh - by the way where 'CAN' I BUY a Newman Trolling MOTOR???????????? Where 'CAN' I buy a newman ANYTHING that RUNS FOREVER OU?????????????? (how about a NewMan Autograph for era in history?) ---------------- Boy I'm glad I didn't Patent my first 'Voy-Man' Doll that Turned into an army tank AND could blast OFF to save the world. (in my mind eye) Opps Newmanism prevails. (i was only 8 when I 'saw' Voy-Man!) Forget you're Superman changing form in a telephone bo oth (covered), forget you the Avengers TRANSMUTATING into world saviers (covered), forget you're bread about to rise from added yeast (COVERED) .. Laywer(s) say so, so there ~~puutthhhh~~~... AND I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE. - SO THERE!! OK, I (we) give up, GIVE US WHAT YOU GOT, WE'LL GIVE YOU 'ALL!' BACK. Newman WILL OWN the World - forever & ever, Amen . all bow (on bended knee) and say Amen . X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 00:23:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:21:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: Re: Reality slaps in the face - again! ahh:) Resent-Message-ID: <"tcqcl.0.LF2.N_Ygp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3918 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > >Ha, we can pantent the AIR you breath! >Sue - Sue - Sue - Sue - Sue... > snip > >Newman WILL OWN the World - forever & ever, Amen . > >all bow (on bended knee) and say Amen . > Steve your a spazz. :> Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /***********************************************************/ /* Anything said by me on this list that I have originated */ /* is in the public domain. PS There's no money in energy. */ /* - At least not after everybody owns an energy device! - */ /****** *****************************************************/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 18:42:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:41:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:38:40 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: SMOT as Time Machine (real experiments included!) Resent-Message-ID: <"VwIdx1.0.zU5.h4pgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8556 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I still can't get a SMOT to do anything but drive me nuts, so here's a post in that vein: You have two tracks side by side on a very slight downslope, track A with no magnets, and track B with a magnet array (loose spacing) along its length. Let the ball roll down A and note the time it takes to get to the end of the track. Now try B. Lots fas ter, but not much momentum at the end, unlike A which has slowly accelerated. (B does a "fake rollaway" due to the slight downslope, wide magnet spacing, and a flared exit.) Haven't tried this yet with a true horizontal rollout track beyond the slightly s loped part to compare total energy, but over a track about 2/3 meter long, I get 7 seconds for A versus 2 seconds for B. B has a nearly half meter long magnet array. It beats A really bad if the measurement is taken over just the magnet array length. I see a gain in power here, but I'm not sure about energy. Power is energy/time, so it looks like at least we're gaining some free *time*, if not free energy! Time = money, right? HECO will be so pleased to know this when I pay next month's electric bill with a bag of SMOT balls. "But, they're really magic beans, see..." A gradient of time is also "gravity", but I'm not ready to go there just now. Horizontal track multi-linked SMOTs remind me of that old sci-fi idea about drilling perfectly straight tunnels through the earth so low-friction gravity trains could 'fall' between any two points on the earth's surface in 1:54 or whatever the time factor is. Maybe if we lined our roads with big magnets (or recycled iron stuff? - is the idea reversable?), we could zip to anywhere we wanted to for free. Instead of a driveway, you'd have a spur section and a blue hole at the end to drop through to your sunk en garage (better get that suspension upgraded on the DeLorean). - Rick Monteverde, gently deteriorating in: Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 18:54:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:53:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:51:17 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Rotary failure modes (was: Attempt.new.type.RMOD) Resent-Message-ID: <"Up2Hn3.0._A6.TGpgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8557 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mpower wrote: > Another factor appears to be the linked magnetic > fields, which may also help account for the > difficulty in linking the linear SMOT's. I find no difficulty at all linking linear horizontal SMOTs. Just butt staggered arrays nose to tail. I use a single magnet in the joints though to smooth the ride and reduce the cogging. So it's magnets stacked: 1-2-3-4, 2-3-4, 2-3-4 etc. I get the impression this kind of array could grow quite long, but I would think there'd be a limit even in horizontal arrays. I don't own enough magnets to find out. However if the idea can be reversed, with arrays of iron along the track and a magnet-be aring cart instead of a SMOT ball... But I think you're right on about circular failure. The "gradient" or something disappears on a tightly closed loop of arrays. And I still wonder if a constant elastic force would substitute for gravity. That is, of course, besides the question of whether this stuff is really is OU at all. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 01:22:54 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:22:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 02:27:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, gwatson@microtronics.com.au Subject: Now now now.... gentlemen Resent-Message-ID: <"zm73X.0.GF7.osZgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3920 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Dan Quickert wrote: NO SNIP on purpose: sorry... > Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:13:52 -0700 (PDT) > From: Dan Quickert > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, gwatson@microtronics.com.au > Subject: SMOT mag array design > Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:14:04 -0700 > Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Chris Tinsley wrote: > >Terry, > > > > > I see you're going to try the wedge magnet design. I guess that > > > Greg's endorsement carried more weight than when I tried to get > > > you to do it. I tried to get everyone to try this with my very > > > first SMOT post. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and > > > trouble. No one listens to a crackpot Ufology nut, I guess. > > > > > > >Rubbish. Obviously quite a few people have listened to you - including > >Jed and Greg and me. But I had to go for the basic design first, > >because otherwise I'd end up trying everything in sight. Now that your > >array design has been developed by Greg into something very clear, I'm > >going for it. Look, your idea has become part of the design - and that > >can't really be said for anyone else except Greg. And you are > >complaining? > > > >Chris > > > > Pardon me, but since this has come up as an issue: > > I wasn't looking for credit on this, but if credit is being given, well... > > The magnet array configuration in question was first posted by me, on April > 10, to Greg and his list. Greg, and others who were recipients, can perhaps > verify that this is authentic. Michael Randall tried my setup on that same > day, and posted positive results. (BTW, Michael was the first to report a > working test of Greg's ramp). Here is a copy of my original message. It's a > long post; I've snipped it and left only headers and the relevant sections: > > >---------- > >From: Dan Quickert > >Sent: Thursday, April 10, 1997 12:12 AM > >To: 'gwatson@microtronics.com.au' > >Cc: 'epitaxy@localaccess.com'; 'dequickert@ucdavis.edu'; > 'catware@worldonline.nl'; 'billb@eskimo.com'; 'harti@harti.com'; > 'puthoff@aol.com'; 'little@eden.com'; 'bshannon@tiac.net'; > 'jnaudin509@aol.com'; 'mrandall@earthlink.net' > >Subject: RE: Simple OU Device > > > >Hi Greg, > > > [snip] > >Anyway it's some 3/8" aluminum U-channel, a bunch of Radio Shack square > >ceramic magnets, a steel ball and masking tape. Varied spacing of the > >magnets seemed not to work as well as just varying the field - first pair is 1 > >magnet, second is 2 together, etc.; set with *no* spacing between them. Did > >not stagger pairs (unlike the patent)(ref U.S. patent 4,215,330). The last pair > >is not parallel. I must admit it took more than 10 minutes all told! > > > >The key to getting release at the end, at least for my primitive setup, was > >to provide a guide to change the ball's forward momentum toward a downward > >fall, rather than just letting it drop. > [snip] > >If your device is similar, have you tried putting one at right angles (or > >whatever) to the output of the other, with a guide to help the ball make > >the turn? > > > >Thanks, Greg, for being so open with this idea and its development. > > > >Dan Quickert > > > > > > and later that day, in response to Michael Randall's query: > > >--------- > >From: Dan Quickert > >Sent: Thursday, April 10, 1997 9:20 AM > >To: 'Michael Randall' > >Cc: epitaxy@localaccess.com; catware@worldonline.nl; billb@eskimo.com; > >harti@harti.com; puthoff@aol.com; little@eden.com; bshannon@tiac.net; > >jnaudin509@aol.com; gwatson@microtronics.com.au; 'dequickert@ucdavis.edu' > >Subject: RE: Simple OU Device > > > >Hi Michael. To answer your questions: > > > >>In your design was the north poles all on one side and south poles all on > >>the opposite side of the track? > > > >yes > > > >>Were they opposite each other and not staggered? > > > >yes - and there is no space between them. They are Radio Shack flat > ceramic, about 1" x >1" x 3/16". There were only 3 sets: #1 set with 1 > magnet; #2 with 2 stacked per side; #3 >with 5 stacked. #3 was angled so > the far end was farther apart than the end near >magnets #2. Also a > cardboard 'shield' was placed over the insides of the #3 set to keep >the > ball from getting too close, as this area was beyond the end of the guiding > track. > > > >>In my design they were like the patent and I could accelerate the ball > >>through the course for and easy exit. With more magnets stacked, the ball > >>could go up a slope and then drop. I'll try your design. > >> > >>Currently building a flat track with two straight sections for a continuous > >>loop. Magnetic powered perpetual motion for a nice executive toy. But for > 10 hp? > > > >Greg's suggestion that we focus on the parameters for leaving the magnets, > and figuring >a way to have a smooth, adjustable graduated magnetic field, > are important for being >able to scale this up. > > > >A practical 10HP will come when we figure out exactly what's happening here > and how, and >use it in a different physical embodiment - unless you want a > very large machine that >has huge PM's rolling cannonballs up slopes ! > > > >Let us know how your dual flat track comes out! > > > >Dan > > > > Clear enough? > > Dan Quickert > > Dan, You're RIGHT! But, I too (I thought cause it 'ruined my birthday 4.12') did the same 'Stacked Array' until I could copy Greg's spec's to spec..! This reminds me of the 'Creations of the WEB/INTENET' profound ideas if not mine then "YOURS!" for the RFCxxx that established the NET! RFC for 'Request for Comments' comes from ALL of US! I knew I thought of 'stacked array's' myself, OR saw it here ( You're GIVEN credit ok...) NEXT STEP? or RFC??? How about Greg going to an IOU# = Identifiying OverUnity# and you can be right upthe front.. (i forgot to post. b-day weekend..opps/..burp) BITE+ = 'B'e 'I'nfinite 'T'o 'E'verything :) That's the way "we" old timers 'got the web/net up in the first place!' -Enjoy! RFC's & IOU's *DO* count! Your LOCKED into digital THEN & NOW! You claim to fame noted by at least another... LET'S BUILD ON! se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 04:46:02 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 04:44:56 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:41:08 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Geoff Greaves cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Stop the car, .... Minn-Kota motors Resent-Message-ID: <"5Kmf43.0.865.sqcgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3922 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Dear FE., Please see notes below... On 19 Jun 1997, Geoff Greaves wrote: Ths one ..... ou from industry If an OU motor is produced it will most likely come from the > well-financed R&D department of a present motor manufacturer, where it would > be no surprise to find people who have worked in similar research elsewhere. > If an individual successfully built one they could be on every TV channel > within a month and flooded with offers of fame and fortune. No patent or > whingeing required. > ..... This one ou NOT from industry..... > I am sure our best chance of OU success lies in the sort of research unlikely > to be taking place in industrial or educational research. Playing with fridge > magnets and ball-bearings for example? > > I will happily pay 50% of the electricity company's charge for the same KW > delivered from your OU devices installed in my home and business and I'm sure > so would a lot of other people. Who'll be the first to deliver? > > > ---------------------------------------- > From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk > ---------------------------------------- > WHAT? > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 06:10:49 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:07:16 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:00:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: ash@freenet.calgary.ab.ca Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, ee-building@crest.org, greenbuilding@crest.org, strawbale@crest.org, ASEP-net@aesp.org, renewenvir@aol.com, susisolar@aol.com Subject: demonstration projects in NYC? Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"8_lJB3.0.JC.32egp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3923 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com When in NYC for 1 week starting this Saturday, are there any exciting demonstrations in the sustainable (green) energy field that "must" be visited? Any interesting examples or projects (especially those marked with an "*") demonstrating state-of-the-art: *1) sustainable architecture examples, esp. office buildings (ie. Audubon House), 2) sustainable/healthy communities (new or retrofit) *3) healthy buildings (IAQ) 4) renewable energy (especially PV/co-gen) 5) energy efficiency (esp. solar) *6) free-energy devices (of particular interest) 7) appropriate technology 8) hydrogen projects *9) electric cars (ie. car dealership?) Please contact me at my e-mail address, since I am not a subscriber to many of these listserves. Thank you for any recommendations BEFORE SATURDAY MORNING. _____________________________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect - in full-time professional practice since 1976 (Straw Bale since 1978), environmental/architectural design, ecological planning, consulting on sustainable buildings/communities. Lectures, seminars, workshops. 3 demonstration projects in Canada, +80,000 visitors - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office ACE, ARE, ACT, ASH-Incs., Phone: (403) 239-1882, Fax: (403) 547-2671 Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~ jdo/ecotecture.htm _________________________________________________________________________ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 06:17:38 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:16:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:42:08 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: Now now now.... gentlemen References: <2.2.16.19970620140717.221f878e@ihug.co.nz> Resent-Message-ID: <"CWAaT3.0.w93.2Begp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3924 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ken Smith wrote: > > >> >From: Dan Quickert > All, > > The parentage of the stacked array is known and acknowledged. It is > a good step forward. The SA is less fussy with exits and it may improve > overall performance. But there are many steps left in this long journey. We should not forget Hartman and his patent. Its been there for almost 20 years. As I have said before, I am NOT the first to do this. Maybe the first to trust in the good side of human nature and disclose to such a world wide gathering. I believe we should ALL think about many other inventors and how they hold their devices so close that NO one, even themselves, ever benefits. It is only by giving that we get back more than we gave. > The very nature of this open forum, with the Internet providing dates and > stamps for messages and suggestions, there is ample evidence of who said > what where and when. Careful observers are following the progress of the > Smott Affair with interest and accuracy. When the last smott model is > consigned to the Smithsonian (rattling cheerfully to itself) and the first > 10KVA model is sold to a household - then let's haggle about who provided > what. Until then, perhaps, we are flees argueing over the ownership of the > dog. The important thing now is to move forward. I agree. > The very fact that so few people have achieved a level roll out is > indicative of the fragile nature of this effect - as we are now employing > it. That there is something to work towards is becoming self evident - just > how to achieve that is not so obvious. There is a good deal of work to be > done here - and between us all we are ill equipped to do that. Our > resources are limited and we are playing with "fridge magnets and balls". > However, our big advantage is that we are at least working at something - > instead of talking. Ditto. > So let's keep posting and thinking. It will surely work itself out > eventually. To (loosely) quote the tank commander (Sutherland) from Kelly's > Heroes - "With all these positive waves, man. How can we fail..." > > Ken Hi Ken. Good to see such a solid approach. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 06:35:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:34:21 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:27:38 -0500 (CDT) From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Free Energy Reply-To: w9sz@prairienet.org Resent-Message-ID: <"PjhcU2.0.K01.SRegp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3925 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > > > Dear FE., > > Please see notes below... > >On 19 Jun 1997, Geoff Greaves wrote: > > >Ths one ..... ou from industry > > If an OU motor is produced it will most likely come from the >> well-financed R&D department of a present motor manufacturer, where it would >> be no surprise to find people who have worked in similar research elsewhere. >> If an individual successfully built one they could be on every TV channel >> within a month and flooded with offers of fame and fortune. No patent or >> whingeing required. >> > >..... This one ou NOT from industry..... > > >> I am sure our best chance of OU success lies in the sort of research unlikely >> to be taking place in industrial or educational research. Playing with fridge >> magnets and ball-bearings for example? >> >> I will happily pay 50% of the electricity company's charge for the same KW >> delivered from your OU devices installed in my home and business and I'm sure >> so would a lot of other people. Who'll be the first to deliver? >> >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk >> ---------------------------------------- >> > > WHAT? I think in the first case he was referring to O/U MOTORS. In the second quoted paragraph he was referring to other O/U devices besides motors. I happen to think neither will be developed by industry, as I feel there are forces at work which are "unconventional" and go against what most are taught in universities. Industries are not likely to hire us "crazies" (Well, speaking for myself anyway) ! (Just my thoughts). I just re-read THE DANCING WU-LI MASTERS by Gary Zukav. I first read it before I got interested in O/U devices. I'd highly recommend it as a good layman's explanation of the new physics. It may give some new insight into free energy. Another outstanding book (which I'm still reading) is ORDER OUT OF CHAOS by Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers. This one I consider a MUST for people working with O/U. It is also written mostly for the layman and outlines Prigogine's non-equilibrium th ermodynamics research. This one truly gives the theory where O/U will come from. He outlines some amazing phenomena in the book. I recommend it to everyone here. So there are my book reviews for the day; happy reading! Zack -- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 02:28:13 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 02:25:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ksmith@ihug.co.nz Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 21:19:33 -1100 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Ken Smith Subject: Re: Now now now.... gentlemen Resent-Message-ID: <"kPEa61.0.sJ5.Loagp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3921 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >> >From: Dan Quickert All, The parentage of the stacked array is known and acknowledged. It is a good step forward. The SA is less fussy with exits and it may improve overall performance. But there are many steps left in this long journey. The very nature of this open forum, with the Internet providing dates and stamps for messages and suggestions, there is ample evidence of who said what where and when. Careful observers are following the progress of the Smott Affair with interest and acc uracy. When the last smott model is consigned to the Smithsonian (rattling cheerfully to itself) and the first 10KVA model is sold to a household - then let's haggle about who provided what. Until then, perhaps, we are flees argueing over the ownership of the dog. The important thing now is to move forward. The very fact that so few people have achieved a level roll out is indicative of the fragile nature of this effect - as we are now employing it. That there is something to work towards is becoming self evident - just how to achieve that is not so obvious . There is a good deal of work to be done here - and between us all we are ill equipped to do that. Our resources are limited and we are playing with "fridge magnets and balls". However, our big advantage is that we are at least working at something - instead of talking. So let's keep posting and thinking. It will surely work itself out eventually. To (loosely) quote the tank commander (Sutherland) from Kelly's Heroes - "With all these positive waves, man. How can we fail..." Ken Ken Smith (ksmith@ihug.co.nz) http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~ksmith X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 01:32:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:29:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:27:34 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT as Time Machine (real experiments included!) Resent-Message-ID: <"tirU4.0.Vh4.x3vgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8569 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi - > I tried something like this earlier and posted at > 10 Jun 1997 19:31:41 as "Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT"[...] Yes, I remember your post now. Although I didn't have a long rollout ramp for these quick and dirty experiments, the *time* gain was obvious. Of course, this is simply the equivalent to having a track in a concave path and allowing gravity to do the work. Of course it's going to go faster, but the work done (energy) is the same or even more due the fact that more friction is encountered along the way due to faster speed - more air and track resistance - so the ball won't even reach the point that a no-mag net track yields. It's trivial, and makes it all seem rather silly. But I don't know yet if it really is silly or not. I've seen smoke, but no fire. Hope your hand isn't throbbing too much! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 07:26:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:25:17 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:22:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: Dave Dameron Cc: freenrg-L@eskimo.com, greenbuilding@crest.org, ash@freenet.calgary.ab.c a Subject: KANSAS CITY: scalars/multi-state control devices Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"lA7Ba1.0.dZ2.BBfgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3926 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Has anyone seen an independent verification of the above device that was installed in the John A. Marshall Building to reduce energy requirements according to the following quote from PACE Vol.6 (2-3): "Heating and Cooling Application Doyles Noyes has perfected the developmentof these aerial configuations over the last 10 years. One Kansas City heritage building has been so outfitted since 1984. As Noyes made scalar circuitry improvements on two aerial units in the 22,400 SF 4-storey b uilding, the energy costs related to steam and electricity supply decreased from 40% in the first year to over 80%, for a 6-year average of 70% savings of the 1984 bills." DOES ANYONE LIVE IN KANSAS CITY and could check this out? I have 2 verifications (1 written and 1 verbal), but need more before I get too excited. In January 1995, when I checked this out, the phone # was (816) 842-5368. Whatever happened to Doyle Noyes? The interest in this technology is for a recofit of a major high rise building. _________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect - in full-time professional practice since 1976 (Straw Bale since 1978), environmental/architectural design, ecological planning, consulting on sustainable buildings/communities. Lectures, seminars, workshops. 3 demonstration projects in Canada, +80,000 visitors - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office ACE, ARE, ACT, ASH-Incs., Phone: (403) 239-1882, Fax: (403) 547-2671 Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~ jdo/ecotecture.htm ______________________________________________________ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 07:40:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:39:07 -0700 From: "chriser" To: Cc: Subject: Re: PEMF Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:38:07 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"85A4T3.0.RM3.AOfgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3927 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hello Michael, As you, i make search with Jean-Louis on the device free energy. When Jean-Louis me send the diagramm of the ramp in V Grag Watson (thank you at Greg Watson to have communicated its ideas and for its patience) i have tested his system of ramp into V, i had difficulty for to choose the corner right. I have to try another arangement of magnets, more easy to adjust, for produce a gradient of field magnétic. I have think naturally at the parallel juxtaposition of magnets. This type of ramp has many advantage in comparaison with the ramp in V de Greg Watson : - The alignment and adjustement are more quiclky. - On can do to vary the arrangement very speed : only the first row magnets (magnets board magnetic) is fixed, the other magnets juxtapose are hold by mutual attraction. - On can to try many various arrangment : 1,2,3 - 1,2,3,4... - 2,3,4.... - The exit seems more efficient. The diagramm of CMEDR is shown only for information. The CEMDR was not tested completely . The boucle was not realized. I do the try with single ramp type PEMF, i did not obtain the lift of 5mm necessary for than the ball to return on the second ramp. But the tests were carried out without the S of Greg Watson. Really tests excuted of the CMEDR : - the ramp and the 'deflector mecanical' to do deflect the trajectory of the ball of 90°. (a level of 5mm at exit is sufficient to return has 180° on the second ramp) I do not have the hardware to take and transmit photograph on internet. Please excuse me for my bad english. Sincerely, Chriser Christian Serin France - Marseille serchri@hol.fr ---------- > De : JUST4MIKE@aol.com > A : serchri@hol.fr > Objet : PEMF > Date : jeudi 19 juin 1997 06:37 > > Christian: > > I saw the drawings of your PEMF on J Naudin's internet home page. I have > communicated with Naudin and Greg Smith about his SMOTs several times. I am > trying to establish correspondence with as many individuals as possible who > have constructed working models of Overunity devices-- especially devices > which complete a loop repeatedly or turn a rotating shaft, disk, etc. > > I would like to know if you have constructed a working model of your PEMF > and if so how long have you been able to get the steel ball to travel without > stopping? If you have any details you can provide for me, like photos or > videos, I would be very interested in hearing from you. > > Look forward to hearing from you. > > Keep up the good work. > > > Sincerely, > > Michael Kiser X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 02:24:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 02:23:24 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Dat e: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:22:26 -1000 To: Vortex From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Very quick report on SMOT V2.0 beta. Resent-Message-ID: <"hzHPS1.0.XE3.Bsvgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8572 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com [Reposted here from e-mail] Martin Sevior wrote: [snip] > PS. Did I read correctly that you can trasnport a > ball long distances with a series of magnet wedges > stuck butt to tail? ie. > (1-2-3-4)(2-3-4)(2-3-4)(2-3-4)? Yes, that's it. With the most recent addition of a 12345 pair on the end, it's around 500mm long now, and it's amazing on the horizontal - the ball moves pretty fast down the entire length. It shows no sign of weakness in horizontal mode the more arrays I add. As a ramp, more mags increase the final height too. I wish I had 1000 or so magnets, I'd just keep going and see where it started to weaken. It would sure be weird if it didn't! On a good day, with freshly cleaned/polished rails and carefully aligned magnets, it can get between 12mm and 15mm of lift, which isn't a big deal really, because a single 12345 pair can do that. But the arrays are fairly loose, I think about 27mm or more , using 3/8" high magnets stacked only 4 deep (except for the final array I just set on the end - from the "Mark II" experiment). My next experiment is to try making a level track section at the top, and see if I can loosen up the arrays even more there, then continue to flare them out across a slight decline from the level summit. I see nice 'fake' rollaways from the flared end array with only the slightest downward track tilt. Always intriguing, but the real goodies always seem "just out of reach". One other thing this long array has taught me is about the collection of any excess energy as momentum in these things: you can't do it, at least as we're configuring them now. Sometimes I'm fiddling with the array or trying for lift, and the ball won't p ass the next to last array or something. So I adjust and fiddle some more, and it still won't go. So in frustration sometimes, I start 'spiking' the ball into the entrance, and it *still* won't go. I've even shot it in like a marble off my thumb with quit e a bit of force in circumstances like this, and not had it pass the flaw or weak spot - then I might just polish the rails a little bit, and the ball makes it up from a standing start. Obviously there is a time dependent process at work as the ball passe s magnets. Eddy current growth and decay rates, magnetization and demag rates, or a combination, or maybe something else. But if you try to exceed the 'speed limit', the effect just runs negative on the ball at that point, and there's no gain, just the braking off of the excess speed. You can spike through one ramp and not really see this, but the braking effect is obvious o n the long ramp. So I'm pretty sure all rotaries that depend on momentum gain and fail to take this into account are doomed on that count alone, if not for more basic reasons. Possible fixes involve finding out what sort of arrangement favors speed, like longer array stacks maybe, and tapering in this adjustment to match the expected increased acceleration of the ball. [snip] - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 08:50:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:29:38 -0700 Date: 20 Jun 97 11:10:28 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Fake SMOT rollaway Resent-Message-ID: <"RBoLN1.0.hs5.X7ggp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8532 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com To: Vortex I have improved my a fake SMOT machine to make it more like Greg's specs for the Mk II version, with the tapered array of magnets. Mine still does not work. It wouldn't be fair to draw any conclusions, because I am still out of spec. My magnets are too bi g and the cut at the end of the ramp is wrong. But this machine does demonstrate the difficulties. You can see what Greg is trying to accomplish. This gadget is incredibly sensitive! And finicky! When I move the magnet arrays or the rollaway track just sl ightly, much less than a millimeter, the performance changes completely, and it stays changed. In one configuration the ball will always drop off and roll away. When I move the outlet track up by tiny bit, the ball will drop off, bounce, and stick to left magnet. I move the left magnet array slightly, and now it sticks to the right magnet! Sometimes I can get the ball to reach the end of the raised track, roll halfway off, and hang. This is a "fake" SMOT because, like Naudin, my rollaway ramp is lower than the starting point of the ramp. Where the starting point is 0 mm, the top of the ramp is +7 mm, the rollaway ramp is -7 mm (so the total drop is 14 mm). 16 cm away from the drop po int the ramp falls to -8 mm. When I make the total drop 13.5 mm instead of 14, the ball bounces up and sticks to the magnets. I am still using modeling clay. It is messy but it allows minute adjustments and it holds things in position surprisingly well. I fear this experiment may not be widely replicated until Greg ships his SMOT kits. Slight variations in things like the strength of the magnets make a huge difference. The experiment is much more difficult than you might think, just seeing the diagrams a nd photos. Chris is doing a serious replication -- unlike mine -- but he cannot get it to work. It is discouraging. Chris should talk to Greg on the telephone. It is a shame we cannot arrange an international video conference. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 02:36:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 02:36:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:33:52 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Something rotten in SMOT? Resent-Message-ID: <"dUpSh.0.sO5.72wgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8574 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > So, one way or another, this curious story > should reach its conclusion quite soon. Or perhaps just as likely live forever among the "undead"? Sometimes I think *I'm* amongst them already, with 'success at last' lurking just one little adjustment away... ... maybe a fresh ball ... ... polish the rails a little here ... ... - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI "zzzzooppp-whup-p-p-p...(clickety-clackity)...ka-CHUNK" [ball sticking up under magnet array, then entire array alignment being destroyed during fat-fingered recovery attempt] X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 07:40:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:40:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:42:53 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Reality slaps in the face - again! ahh:) Resent-Message-ID: <"cwGI72.0.kr5.SPfgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3928 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Scott Becker wrote: >>----snip---- >> Joseph Newman : >> He announced that he is sueing some ex-employees >> and several companies for "Stealing his technology". >> These companies produce electric trolling motors and >> electric lawn mowers and "maybe other things." Minn-kota >> was named. >> >> I know you can patent a device. >> I think you can patent a process. >> I *don't* think you can patent a concept. >> I'm real sure you *can't* patent a wave form. > >Ha, we can pantent the AIR you breath! >Sue - Sue - Sue - Sue - Sue... > >Let's see, my individual reasearch causes(?) me to make a good?! product >like a trolling motor (or remove my house from the grid).. Joesph NEWman >will now 'SUE' me because he has Lawyers with 'iron tight' I OWN >EVERYTHING, ANYTHING Overunity.. (opps not OU, But Perpitual.... NO, NOT >PM, But FLEM capacitor Discharge.... opps NO, NOT FCD but (look in form >412 paragraph XII..er.er... Long Wires - Long Wrappings !! Time Travel >something=everything!!! colorful snip-- >forget you the Avengers TRANSMUTATING into world saviers (covered), forget >you're bread about to rise from added yeast (COVERED) .. Laywer(s) say so, >so there ~~puutthhhh~~~... AND I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE. - SO >THERE!! > >OK, I (we) give up, GIVE US WHAT YOU GOT, WE'LL GIVE YOU 'ALL!' BACK. > >Newman WILL OWN the World - forever & ever, Amen . > >all bow (on bended knee) and say Amen Dear Steve, Colorful comments -- even if they are 'grammatically-challenged.'!! :-) With those gyroscopic particles in mind, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space." --- MICHAEL FARADAY X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 09:19:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:09:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: 3 SMOTs linked - Test passed Resent-Message-ID: <"7Cs0q.0.Ac1.Zjggp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8534 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Jean-Louis Nice job of drawing up your RMOD V2.0 and the construction of the unit at your web site. Alot of work! Looking forward to hearing of your research progress in this important utilitarian device. Sincerely, Michael Randall At 03:01 AM 6/19/97 -0400, you wrote: > >Today, I work on the RMOD device ( the schemes and pictures are in my web >server ) and I hope that I shall finish the testing soon...... > >GREG : Have you some videos or pictures about the 6 loop rollaround test ? > >Sincerely, > > >Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) >Email : JNaudin509@aol.com >my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ >WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 09:49:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:45:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: SMOT FEVER Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:43:29 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"e87cy.0.VC3.DEhgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8535 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com To Vortex: The "fever" has spread uncontrolled across the Earth. With Jed's proximity to Atlanta's CDC there may be assistance available. Meantime, a few aspirin and lots of rest, and keep playing with your magnets, ramps, and balls. Talk about a Fool Moon! :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 10:03:47 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:02:43 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:02:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Now now now.... gentlemen Resent-Message-ID: <"nRp2v3.0.zR3.nUhgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3929 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Looks like maybe I need to explain myself here: As I said in the original post: > Pardon me, but since this has come up as an issue: > > I wasn't looking for credit on this, but if credit is being given, well... Which means exactly that: I don't necessarily feel a need for credit for the idea, but if you *are* going to give someone credit for it, please credit the right person(s). I think it was a fairly obvious way to get a graduated mag field, probably many had the idea concurrently. I just broadcast it first. Everyone has contributed something here, and I think it's a bit early to start naming the parts for people. So maybe we could call this magnet configuration by a neutral name, like Ken Smith's "stacked ar ray". The point was, *if* credit is going to be given for something, let's be careful about making the correct attribution. I think Greg, in particular, should be mindful of this since he's the 'group leader' on this particular project. keep on rollin' them balls, Dan X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 12:48:00 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:45:38 -0700 (PDT) From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: herman@antioch-college.edu Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stop the car, .... Minn-Kota motors Date: 20 Jun 1997 19:07:00 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"VpyBv.0.eM4.Ktjgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3932 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com John Schnurer said "WHAT?" I was hoping to point out that electric motor development is being constantly undertaken by industry's employees who would probably be sacked if they were found playing with fridge magnets and ball-bearings. I believe that there is as much chance, however , of stumbling upon OU by such practices as there is by more scientific progression from existing technologies. I hope I've answered the question :-? ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 12:42:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:38:17 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Attempt at a new type of RMOD Resent-Message-ID: <"_s2141.0.y24.dojgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8539 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 8:35 AM 6/20/97, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Hi, > >Bob Horst wrote: > >> Last weekend, I attempted to build a Rotating OU Device of my own >> design. Unfortunately it shows no signs of OU, so I am giving up -- >> maybe this will be of some help to others, at least giving you one >> idea not to try. > >Greg's design is mostly based on the conversion of the kinetic energy to >magnetic one, different speeds and different time intervals. He is >always emphasize on it. If it is really key point of extracting the >energy, variable speed of the ball while crossing the fields are >necessary. On the contrary your wheel have a large momentum when >comparing it to a single ball. As a result the speed of the wheel will >not be changed dramatically by the magnetic forces. Maybe this is the >reason of the failure. > >Regards, > >Hamdi Ucar Doesn't seem likely. What's the difference between the force caused by inertia and gravity? What's the difference between potential energy of increased height vs the equivalent amount in momentum? That extra mass should help "rollaway" just as well as a downward slope and/or the angular momentum of the ball. The problem must be due to improper (not analagous) field shape, or maybe a change in field dynamics due to lack of ball rotation. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 12:51:11 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:44:11 -0700 From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: skot@compumedia.com Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Minn-Kota motors (etc) Date: 20 Jun 1997 19:47:51 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"qAKBM.0.uR5.9sjgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3931 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Scott Becker wrote: snip >I don't believe everything I hear but when I hear about someone who >builds a device which works, creates usable power, and he gets his >head blown off with a shotgun snip If a measure of our success is our unnatural-death-rate I pray we remain unsuccessful! I would love to see a very much alive Joseph Newman (or anyone else) demonstrate an OU motor but am bored after four months of hearing so much about this not actually happening. It's not that four months is a long time, it's that another thirty years will be. snip >Of course you probably don't want to waste your time having a >dialog with someone like me, who dosen't even have a high school >diploma, and is burdened with egotistical fantasies. snip Sounds like you're well qualified for the "crackpot" pursuit of OU :-) If you want to feel good read some books on the 'new' physics and marvel at how highly intelligent people can become arogant and blinkered the more they specialise, (not all of them, t hank goodness.) Good luck with the thermodynamics, not my scene I'm afraid. I wish I had time to experiment with my own ideas. Fame and fortune would certainly help; I wouldn't have to work seven days a week. Hmmm, off to buy a lottery ticket.......... ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 12:47:57 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:44:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com (Unverified) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:51:25 -0700 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: A Confirming Closed-Loop SMOT??? Resent-Message-ID: <"wVgXv1.0.mK4.hsjgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3930 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com At 09:11 AM 6/19/97 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Epitaxy, > >Craig Haynie had some good questions. I also have some questions: > >1. What are the individual neo mag sizes? Mag stacking arrangement? 1"x1.5"x1.5". Ones straight row of magnets per each mag. array. N-S configuration between 2 rows. >2. How did you make the 90 deg turn connections between the ramps? Model railroad track. >From what you've said about the ball jumping off the track and sticking to >the metal back plate, it sounds like what Greg, myself and others noticed. >That the mag field strength is greater on the metal plate edges by a factor >or 3 to 4 times greater. The ball is just seeking the greater mag field. >Also the 1/8" steel backing plate seems to be saturated by the very strong >neo magnets. > >Have you tried adding more metal backing plates to delute the mag field >strenght at the plate edges? Yes, more thickness did not help, and misaligned everything. > >Congradulations! and thank you for sharing your research experiments. > >Thanks, >Michael Randall > >At 07:26 AM 6/19/97 +0000, you wrote: >>Epitaxy: >> >>Do I understand correctly, from reading your report on Greg Watson's >>page, that you've also achieved a complete closed-loop with your SMOT >>system, Yes, 5 loops have rotated the device 90 degrees in 4 directions, have set the >>device up in several places over a 20 mile area, and have placed it on a >>soft surface to damped vibrations, and in all these cases, you get a >>Closed Loop??? A chaotic closed loop (5 circuits max), then the ball "derails" >>If so, what is the maximum number of revolutions that you've achieved? 5 for 30 seconds. (P.S. I've seen somedy wrongly quote 6, maybe they meant 6 seconds per 1 rev.) >>What is the total time period of a revolution? 6seconds >> What is the total track distance? apx. 100" >> >>Thanks, >> >>Craig Haynie >> >> >> > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 13:02:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:57:47 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:56:28 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Credit for the wedge idea Resent-Message-ID: <"wDHEf3.0.FQ6.v2kgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8541 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Adding some words of clarification or making minor adaptations or even building a significantly differing embodyment of an invention, though it may be good engineering, does not somehow nullify the orginal invention. It could be argued that the wedge idea falls under the Hartman patent due to the magnet arrays adjacent to the track, and further that the wedge idea is an obvious extension of Hartman's design since Hartman shows a wedge shape embodiment of his patent, w here the wedge is located at the end of the ramp. The purpose of Hartman's inital wide magnet separation and the staggering of the magnets, followed by more densly packed magnets, and finally additional magnets stacked (and skewed) at the end of the ram p all clearly are provided to make for an increasing field strength over the length of the ramp. On the other hand, the 1-2-3-4-5 stack idea is simple to implement and, if shown to be especially effective, might be patentable if not already invented, though it would still be subordinate to Hartman's patent. Seems to me if credit is to be passed out at this juncture, it should be to Greg for doing such a great job of communicating, organizing and motivating the work. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 13:25:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:17:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Epitaxy , Vorte x-L Subject: closing the loop Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:13:00 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"6pXtx2.0.fm5.LLkgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8542 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com What is the change in magnetization of the steel ball, before and after a closed loop run? This would be worth measuring, to get a handle on what is happening. Hank Scudder X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 14:20:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:07:52 -0700 Date: 20 Jun 97 17:06:01 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Credit for the wedge idea Resent-Message-ID: <"j1_FJ.0.rU3.d4lgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8544 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mr. Heffner said, >>Seems to me if credit is to be passed out at this juncture, it should be to Greg for doing such a great job of communicating, organizing and motivating the work.<< Amen! I claim no "credit" for the wedged magnets and did not intend to. It's the same thing that Greg does with the angled magnets. I only contended that it was easier to implement and was trying to bop mon bon ami, Tinsley, in the gob for not trying it earli er. Single-minded old cuss, he is -- but ya gotta luv him. My message was intended to be sent to him via private email; but, he said he saw it on the list. Alas, "To err is human, but to really screw up requires a computer." One thing about Chris, if he says his Ragland cell is performing ou, you can take it to the bank. I queried him elsewhere if his cell had the Teflon barrier around the palladium to avoid direct current paths to the metal. He said he saw no plastic barri er. I know I read that Ragland used this somewhere; but, I can't remember where. Was it here? Maybe it was in the IE (#11?) article. Does anyone know? My IE issues are out on loan to septics. Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 14:46:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:44:29 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:44:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Credit for the wedge idea Resent-Message-ID: <"uhIj53.0.O86.xclgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8547 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace wrote: [big snip] > >Seems to me if credit is to be passed out at this juncture, it should be to >Greg for doing such a great job of communicating, organizing and motivating >the work. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > Yes! couldn't have said it better myself (and didn't :-) Dan X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 18:57:49 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:50:48 +1000 X-Sender: egel@main.murray.net.au To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: Re: Earth batteries Resent-Message-ID: <"b9HH71.0.Tw5.5EUgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3915 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com At 11:21 AM 6/18/97 -0700, you wrote: > > >Found an intersting article on earth batterries reproduced some of it any my web site under the encyclopedia of free energy this weeks new page >> >let me know what you think > >Geoff Http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel or it can be found Under Earth Batteries at http://geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 19:22:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 03:27:36 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: SMOT as Time Machine (real experiments included!) Resent-Message-ID: <"suQeY3.0.6C7.gfpgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8558 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, I tried something like this earlier and posted at 10 Jun 1997 19:31:41 as "Re: Magnetic Energy in SMOT" With this setup I able to compare the the effect of the magnet system. Quotes from this one: I made lot of rampless SMOT experiments two days ago and get null results. My experiment setup was like this: L-\o MMMMMMMMMM \_______________________________________________________________|-L A B P The Roll down ramp(A) is 10 degree inclineded and Ball is started with 1 cm potential energy. Track B is 1 meter long and slightly inclined up to restore the 10 mm drop from the start. (L-)'s shows the same level 25 mm diameter ball is used. track inner s pacing is 12 mm. When no magnets are present, released ball from ramp A roll until the point p and return. Track-ball frictions are minimized so the ball keep rolled and swing about a minute until full stop at bottom of A. When magnets are inserted in various configurations( classical, chevron arrangements and its variations, single top magnet arrays) the ball does not roll never beyond point p. On well balanced arrangements and within smooth acceleration deceleration schem es (which ensure ball rolling without sliding) equalize the point p. Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 14:09:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:08:07 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:05:35 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minn-Kota motors (etc) References: <3973185534.11017947@compcafe.co.uk> Resent-Message-ID: <"CCQxc2.0.SW3.r4lgp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3933 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Geoff Greaves wrote: > > Scott Becker wrote: > snip > >I don't believe everything I hear but when I hear about someone who > >builds a device which works, creates usable power, and he gets his > >head blown off with a shotgun > snip > > If a measure of our success is our unnatural-death-rate I pray we remain > unsuccessful! Always remember to take a break from the workbench, and practice your marksmanship! > I would love to see a very much alive Joseph Newman (or anyone else) > demonstrate an OU motor but am bored after four months of hearing so much > about this not actually happening. It's not that four months is a long time, > it's that another thirty years will be. Four months!? It's been closer to 30 years already than four months. Of course, some will claim that Mr. Newman has already proven over unity operation......yet the same objections remain unaddressed after all this time. Its not like the technical points raised are some esoteric technobable, its really basic stuff! What I would love to see is a report of over unity operation where the inventors quickly respond to any issues in the testing methods promptly and professionally, using accepted methods, not simply multiplying current times voltage and calling that the wa ttage without due respect for AC power factors, or not integrating the total energy used to reach full field strength, etc. Has anyone kept count of how many claims of over unity operation have evaporated under the light of AC power factors alone? You would think that by now this would be the first measurment made and published. Hmmm, there was the MRA, the UDT, several motor-generator setups, at least two flux gate devices, and all failed to pass the power factor test. I'm sure there are many more as well. This must be the #1 killer of electrical device claims. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 17:51:40 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:50:34 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:56:05 -0400 From: B25B@LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: B25B@LCIA.COM To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Free energy Resent-Message-ID: <"7fIHb3.0.Pk.PLogp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3934 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Forget power factor, voltsXamps. If a device is over unity it should run by itself without any outside power except for start up. Ron Brennen X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 18:00:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 08:58:27 +0800 (SGT) X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: mpower consultants Subject: Rotary failure modes (was: Attempt.new.type.RMOD) Resent-Message-ID: <"I9r4g2.0.JT3.pTogp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8554 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Horace Heffner posted the following (edited for brevity) at 11:38 1997.06.20 -0800: >At 8:35 AM 6/20/97, Hamdi Ucar wrote: > >> >>Greg's design is mostly based on the conversion of the kinetic energy to >>magnetic one, different speeds and different time intervals. He is >>always emphasize on it. If it is really key point of extracting the >>energy, variable speed of the ball while crossing the fields are >>necessary. On the contrary your wheel have a large momentum when >>comparing it to a single ball. As a result the speed of the wheel will >>not be changed dramatically by the magnetic forces. Maybe this is the >>reason of the failure. >> >Doesn't seem likely. What's the difference between the force caused by >inertia and gravity? What's the difference between potential energy of >increased height vs the equivalent amount in momentum? That extra mass >should help "rollaway" just as well as a downward slope and/or the angular >momentum of the ball. The problem must be due to improper (not analagous) >field shape, or maybe a change in field dynamics due to lack of ball >rotation. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > Sorry Folks, but from my own experiments, he seems to have hit the nail on the head. In rotary 'fixed-disc' systems which use inertia as a key component, the effect disappears. In the SMOT, the ball is free to accelerate/decelerate through the mag field/grav field differential. Another factor appears to be the linked magnetic fields, which may also help account for the difficulty in linking the linear SMOT's. I may not be able to describe this accurately, but I'll give it a go: The circular magnetic devices generally consist of a number of magnets arranged in various fashions around a common center. All of the various arrangements I have assembled had one point in common: the magnetic fields blend together, and there is no longer an effective 'asymmetric (sawtooth) cog' such as exists on the SMOT. And thirdly, inertia appears to be an unsuitable replacement for gravity as a counterpart force for the magnetic component of the SMOT. All of the rotary devices which do not use gravity as a counterbalance to the magnetic differential seem to grind t o a halt. My observation is that the effect of the SMOT is a product of the differential accelerations induced by a magnetic field counterbalanced by a gravity field. The difference between inertia and Gravity should be obvious: in the magnetic field the backforce provided by inertia declines as the field is worked against (i.e. - momentum [K.E.] is dissipated). gravity provides a constant force (we generally *assume* - be careful here!) which does not lessen during work in the magnetic field. so sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but... MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 * (-latest update: 1997.06.15.12:30-) ***************************************************** X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 13:41:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:41:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 10:37:17 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Long SMOT ramp behavior Resent-Message-ID: <"EV34f3.0.nJ.Pn3hp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8594 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Martin - > Where does the ball end up in your extremely long array? At the end of the half-meter array, it's stuck in the end at the blue hole of the last array section, just as if that were the only array. That's with the frame tilted so it's in 'ramp' mode. Left horizontal on a true flat surface, the ball runs more powe rfully, and usually reflects off the "wall" at the end and snaps back for some oscillations, ending up settling somewhere in the middle. I can see a 'fractal' sort of effect, where the whole ramp seems to act a bit like a smaller array of simply parallel magnets, maybe very slightly angled together towards one end, because the ball will tend to settle near that area if it's left to oscillate off a 'wall' rebound, or again if the ball is placed within the array somewhere rather than allowed to enter normal ly from the end. But that parallel array type of behavior seems to be strongly overridden by the individual array sections in link mode if the ball enters normally from the end. On typical run, the ball doesn't seem to slow down in the middle, but rather speeds up at first, seems to find a steady but well-powered 'stride' through the mid sections, and then slows a bit as it nears the last sections. The second to last section seems to be the weak point - it's the first place the ball fails during increasin g ramp angle experiments. One detail about linking in this ramp. I can simply butt 1-2-3-4 arrays end to end, all taped up against a plastic guide rail on each side of the track so they are all parallel on their inner (track-facing) faces. The ball will roll through if the whole a rray is flat, but it's coggy and it doesn't climb in ramp mode very well. I have 5/16" threaded rods stuck magnetically to the outsides of these arrays, where the rods just stick across the 'tops' of the arrays, at the '4' stacks. They're on the outside e dge of the array. They help smooth things out. Then I found I could further smooth the cogging without losing performance (it seemed to gain, actually) by placing a magnet in the thin spot where a '4' stack joins the '1' end of the following array. I don' t place the magnet in like a brick as if it were taped in with the 1-2-3-4 array to create a 2-2-3-4, but it's standing up on end in that gap, sort of leaned back against the '4' stack. I should probably just shoot a picture of this thing and make a GIF. I was not correct saying this ramp was "1-2-3-4,2-3-4,2-3-4." It's 1-2-3-4, *2-2-3-4, *2-2-3-4. > What does that mean? Do you mean they're 27 mm > apart? Is this the thickness of a stack of magnets? Yes, 27mm apart. The gap between arrays with the track in the middle is around 27mm wide. > Very interesting! I guess too fast and the eddy > currents cause too much drag. Too slow and the ball > can't "tunnel" through the various magnetic hills. I > still can't fathom why this system works. It's > totally fascinating! Do our resident magetic field > experts have an idea? This is a very interesting > alternative approach. I have a mind to start > churning out 1-2-3-4-5 magnets so I'll have a go > at this too. Maybe not 0.5 meters but say 4 or 5 of > (1-2-3-4-5) pairs. I'm not sure whether to be amazed that this long ramp works as well as it does, or just write it off as another of the SMOT's deceptions. It takes very little energy to move a ball down 500mm of polished track. But to do it so *fast* and/or make it climb. .. I don't know yet. Need more magnets. 2 or more meters of solid travel with no signs of weakness or slowdown proportional to the increasing length might just convince me. I have yet to test any magnets-on-a-cart, ferrite-by-the-track things. Probably d oesn't work, but if it did - it would sure save on magnets. I've found that a heavy gauge foil tape is an good way to assemble magnet arrays. Using a strip of Sintra plastic the height of the magnets as a 'backbone' or starting support frame that gets taped in with the magnets, I can easily line them up and tape t hem in against their tendency to fly apart in these stacked arrays. They look cool too, all wrapped up in shiny aluminum foil. The foil's thin, so I don't think there's any significant eddy losses from the tape. I think I'm about to abandon aluminum or brass tracks for acrylic too. I can't get a decent drop 'S' made from aluminum tracks, but it would be easy cutting a pair of sheets clamped together in any profile you wanted to. I've made test sections of acrylic track where the track is cut out by successive table saw cuts forming a dado cut or groove, then block-sanding and polishing the sides and edges of the slot. *Very* quiet low friction ride, and seems to be more dust-tole rant than the harder metal rails. The friction is so low, I use these for my levels now to check for tilts when I want a dead horizontal run. Probably not too durable for those long closed-loop tests, but that's not been a problem for me yet. BTW, Nikola Tesla did some work on homopolars with steel discs and magnet arrays which looked superficially like a SMOT array - just a pair of parallel bars running radially on either side of the disc, polarized on their long faces. He shows in a patent h ow the slightly persistent eddy currents can at times assist or retard the turning disc at different rpms. According to one source on this, and I don't know if this is from the patent or other literature, he is said to have been fascinated by some interesting possibilities with these devices, but moved on with other projects he favored more at the time. Tesla was not the New Age free-energy twinkie some people these days make him out to have been, and probably was not ever thinking of "overunity", which was a concept he probably didn't believe in. But he did "see something" related to rotating steel in a magne tic field with his amazing and visionary mind. We may be finding out what it was. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 19:52:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:51:39 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:52:16 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: PARKING-LOT SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"uEBYg1.0.tp.x6qgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8559 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com OK, OK, this SMOT thing is interfering with my kitchen remodel! Suggestion: Everyone with several linked SMOTS should agree to meet at some parking lot - maybe in Kansas City - and set up all their SMOTS in a big circle. I mean a "big" circle!! If we can't get 40 or 50 circled SMOTS to run non-stop, then, I say tel l the SMOTS to "pound salt"! All this takes is linked SMOTs running on a level spot. It would take a "standard gage" ball, but maybe that is doable. Or, maybe we need a SMOT "angel" - a veritable magnet "Magnet" with an unlimited supply of magnets - yeh, that's it - we apply Jed's criteria for research funding and require that if SMOTs really work, then why won't some magnet magnet fund the parking-lo t experiment? Look at all the magnet sales potential if SMOTs can be demonstrated in a really wild way! I visualize a quiet summer morning. On some main street, USA (since I live there) a respectful but eager crowd waits for a sign. Down the center of main street runs a line of small ramps, motionless and silent. Then, in the distance - barely audible in the morning still - errrr-clack, errrr-clack, errrr-clack, ERRRR-CLACK, ERRRR-CLACK, errrr-clack, errrr-clack, errrr-clack ........... a tiny steel ball fades into the rising sun -----. The rest is history. Sigh ! Frank Stenger (my old chevron magnet array sits quietly on the floor beside me - gathering dust - while my duties take my attention elsewhere.) X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 14:23:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 11:16:45 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: half-meter SMOT image (24K) Resent-Message-ID: <"hmBDS3.0.Y51.YL4hp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8595 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Here's a GIF of the half meter long SMOt array I've been playing with. The larger exit array stuck to the end is a 1-2-3-4-5 pair I made for the Mark II tests, which will have to await my building a nicer exit 'S' section out of plastic. I'm getting nowhe re with aluminum track on that. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\BIGSMOT.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 20:32:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:31:52 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:31:46 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: something rotten in SMOT? References: <33AB41E0.7DDD@interlaced.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"bTbWC.0.Ci2.diqgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8560 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > Suggestion: Everyone with several linked SMOTS should agree to meet > at some parking lot ... Better suggestion: Greg Watson provides kit containing prefabricated closed loop SMOT. I hate to say I told you so, but so far it appears as I predicted---unless Greg himslef provides copies of the device, it is not going to be replicatable. This does not necessarily mean that his device never "worked". It is just that my experience investigating anomalous claims shows they are never easily and independently reproducible. If the inventor belives in his device, it makes *much* more sense for him to provide demo copies for testing, rather than instructions for copying. On a skeptical note, we observe that many of the great "free energy" enthusiasts and their brethren have provided instructions/patents for duplication, but never the working duplicates themselves. Why doesn't just *one* of them break with tradition and pr ovide accesible working protoypes? I guess they are not *that* anxious to alter the future of civilization.... -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 01:00:36 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:59:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:53:26 +1000 X-Sender: egel@main.murray.net.au (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: Re: Earth batteries Resent-Message-ID: <"bZBeD2.0.0L3.mXZgp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3919 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com At 11:21 AM 6/18/97 -0700, you wrote: > > >Found an intersting article on earth batterries reproduced some of it any my web site under the encyclopedia of free energy this weeks new page >> >let me know what you think > >Geoff Http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel or it can be found Under Earth Batteries at http://geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135/index.html sorry about the problem "earth batteries"seems my index file has not updated itself properly you should be able to view with this extension X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 22:46:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:44:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:44:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: Very quick report on SMOT V2.0 beta. Resent-Message-ID: <"vrXQ21.0.0Z4.8fsgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8564 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, here's a very quick report on my playing with the SMOT v2.0 beta. I followed Greg's design very closely I think. At least I have the same brand of Magnets made by Jarcar he uses. The machincal setup is far from ideal though. I'd really screw adjustments everywhere. That would take real effort though. 1. It's much easier to get the SMOT 2.0 to work as a ramp. I got it to work with almost no effort. 2. I can get at least 25% more lift with the v2.0. (around 14 - 15 mm) whereas I got 12 on a good day with the wind behind before. 12 mm lift is now a piece of cake. 3. I can get a "fake" roll-away if the entrence is 1 mm above the exit. This is considerably better than before, when I needed 3 mm. 4. I have not managed a genuine roll away or any incontroversial evidence of anomalus behaviour. 5. I have not managed to link even 2 ramps on a level to level basis. ie. Entrence of second is same height as entrence to first. 6. I would say that my "S" exits are far from ideal. I think I'm losing a lot of energy there. 7. The 10 mm ramp height is difficult to achieve with my 12 mm high Al U-tube. I think I might try "N" gauge rail tracks for everything. In conclusion, my ham fisted and far less ideal SMOT 2.0 beta's are much easier to work with than V1.0. I have not seen any anomalus behaviour. As a side note, I've shown my ramps to a few Physicist friends here at TRIUMF. They've been uniformly fascinated but wonder why I don't spend more time looking for dibaryons (6 quark clusters as opposed to ordinary 3-quark baryons), which is why I'm meant to be here. Cheers! Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 00:44:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:42:29 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 03:41:13 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: johnste@ecg.csg.mot.com Subject: Re : JLN - RMOD Resent-Message-ID: <"1xrcd1.0.ON1.aNugp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8567 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi John, On 20/06/1997 14:29:05 , John E. Steck wrote : << Jean-Louis: 1) Does it run continuously or is that just a looped animation? 2) If it is running continuously, what is the estimated RPM? torque? >> Unfortunately the device stop after a few time, the only closed loop continously today is "the looped animation".... :-( But I think that I have a good idea for achieving the closed loop now... In the RMOD the gravity as no effect in the regauging process..... I have tried to use kinetic energy and the non-linearity of the ball's path for breaking the magnetic attraction. During my first series of tests the RMOD, once launched, rotates and STOPS after a few time, the regauging effect is not sufficient to maintain the rotation. It seems that the main problem comes from the material used for the rotating balls. As far as I am concerned, I think that I need to find the appropriated material or alloy which have a low magnetic saturation. I shall try to explain what I think about this : The principle of my RMOD V2.0 device is the use of the kinetic energy to regauge the system. But the kinetic energy at the exit must be greater than the magnetic back drag of the magnetic ramp. During the first 2/3 of the path inside the magramp, the ball is accelerated and converts the magnetic energy into kinetic energy, in this first part the core of the ball is active and not magneticaly saturated. When the ball reaches the saturation point, about at 20 mm BEFORE the higher flux density area, the material should be magneticaly saturated and the ball have the lowest magnetic permeability. At this point, all magnetic energy is converted into kinetic e nergy. If the kinetic energy is sufficient to pass through the exit the regauging effect is possible and we should be able to build an open system for ZPE energy like a water wheel...... The use of K. Monel alloy ( specially Monel K500 ) seems good. This kind of ball is commercially available in ball bearings of Monel K500. The saturation of Monel alloy is reached at around 0.2 Teslas for 700000 A/m. I am working today on magnetic simulation with QuickField, if you are interested, I can send you some designs. I am studying most particularly a special design with a thin shell around the ball made with a high permeability alloy like supermalloy. The mai n goal of this study is to find the good setup which can create a magnetic shield just before the higher flux density area ( drop zone ) but without reducing significantly the magnetic to kinetic energy conversion during the first part (2/3) of the magnet ic ramps. I hope that I have been explicit enough, I would like to now your point of view about this thinking process. Nice to speak with you, Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 00:42:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:41:22 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 03:41:16 -0400 (EDT) To: bshannon@tiac.net cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re : Re: Did J.L. Naudin succeed ? Resent-Message-ID: <"Ts9xd2.0.kK1.XMugp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3935 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 21/06/1997 00:30:37 , Bob Shannon wrote : << Looking at the GIF animation, it seems that the disk is turing the wrong way, or am I really confused? >> Hi Bob, No, this is the good way, the ball rotate CLOCKWISE in the GIF ANIMATION, in my RMOD V2.0 final design the entrance of the RMOD is at the TOP of the device and the exit at the BOTTOM..... I agree with you that it may confuse someone, if you look at the 3D design just bellow. This final configuration of my RMOD is only for technical design of the machine. In the RMOD the gravity as no effect in the regauging process..... I have tried to use kinetic energy and the non-linearity of the ball's path for breaking the magnetic attraction. During my first series of tests the RMOD, once launched, rotates and STOPS after a few time, the regauging effect is not sufficient to maintain the rotation. It seems that the main problem comes from the material used for the rotating balls. As far as I am concerned, I think that I need to find the appropriated material or alloy which have a low magnetic saturation. I shall try to explain what I think about this : The principle of my RMOD V2.0 device is the use of the kinetic energy to regauge the system. But the kinetic energy at the exit must be greater than the magnetic back drag of the magnetic ramp. During the first 2/3 of the path inside the magramp, the ball is accelerated and converts the magnetic energy into kinetic energy, in this first part the core of the ball is active and not magneticaly saturated. When the ball reaches the saturation point, about at 20 mm BEFORE the higher flux density area, the material should be magneticaly saturated and the ball have the lowest magnetic permeability. At this point, all magnetic energy is converted into kinetic e nergy. If the kinetic energy is sufficient to pass through the exit the regauging effect is possible and we should be able to build an open system for ZPE energy like a water wheel...... The use of K. Monel alloy ( specially Monel K500 ) seems good. This kind of ball is commercially available in ball bearings of Monel K500. The saturation of Monel alloy is reached at around 0.2 Teslas for 700000 A/m. I am working today on magnetic simulation with QuickField, if you are interested, I can send you some designs. I am studying most particularly a special design with a thin shell around the ball made with a high permeability alloy like supermalloy. The mai n goal of this study is to find the good setup which can create a magnetic shield just before the higher flux density area ( drop zone ) but without reducing significantly the magnetic to kinetic energy conversion during the first part (2/3) of the magnet ic ramps. I hope that I have been explicit enough, I would like to now your point of view about this thinking process. Nice to speak with you, Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 00:44:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:42:47 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 03:41:20 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re : Re: Attempt at a new type of RMOD Resent-Message-ID: <"pOJPy2.0.2v3.rNugp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8566 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 21/06/1997 05:13:05 , Horace Heffner wrote : << Doesn't seem likely. What's the difference between the force caused by inertia and gravity? What's the difference between potential energy of increased height vs the equivalent amount in momentum? That extra mass should help "rollaway" just as we ll as a downward slope and/or the angular momentum of the ball. The problem must be due to improper (not analagous) field shape, or maybe a change in field dynamics due to lack of ball rotation. Regards, Horace Heffner >> Hi Horace, In the RMOD the gravity as no effect in the regauging process..... I have tried to use kinetic energy and the non-linearity of the ball's path for breaking the magnetic attraction. During my first series of tests the RMOD, once launched, rotates and STOPS after a few time, the regauging effect is not sufficient to maintain the rotation. It seems that the main problem comes from the material used for the rotating balls. As far as I am concerned, I think that I need to find the appropriated material or alloy which have a low magnetic saturation. I shall try to explain what I think about this : The principle of my RMOD V2.0 device is the use of the kinetic energy to regauge the system. But the kinetic energy at the exit must be greater than the magnetic back drag of the magnetic ramp. During the first 2/3 of the path inside the magramp, the ball is accelerated and converts the magnetic energy into kinetic energy, in this first part the core of the ball is active and not magneticaly saturated. When the ball reaches the saturation point, about at 20 mm BEFORE the higher flux density area, the material should be magneticaly saturated and the ball have the lowest magnetic permeability. At this point, all magnetic energy is converted into kinetic e nergy. If the kinetic energy is sufficient to pass through the exit the regauging effect is possible and we should be able to build an open system for ZPE energy like a water wheel...... The use of K. Monel alloy ( specially Monel K500 ) seems good. This kind of ball is commercially available in ball bearings of Monel K500. The saturation of Monel alloy is reached at around 0.2 Teslas for 700000 A/m. I am working today on magnetic simulation with QuickField, if you are interested, I can send you some designs. I am studying most particularly a special design with a thin shell around the ball made with a high permeability alloy like supermalloy. The mai n goal of this study is to find the good setup which can create a magnetic shield just before the higher flux density area ( drop zone ) but without reducing significantly the magnetic to kinetic energy conversion during the first part (2/3) of the magnet ic ramps. I hope that I have been explicit enough, I would like to now your point of view about this thinking process. Nice to speak with you, Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 19:29:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:28:35 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:17:08 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Long SMOT ramp behavior Resent-Message-ID: <"MFEi63.0.Sl6.It8hp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8608 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Scott - > We experimented with a similar configuration but, > in yr parlance, it was a bunch of 2-2-2-2 arrays > butted together. In other words, simply a long > section of track lined with double rows of magnets > on each side. The ball entered the magnet area and > accelerated to a suprisingly high speed, zooming > down to the other end of the magnets where it > "bounces" off the mag potential well. It would > never exit the far end, even when the track was > level. Seemed normal to me. Me too. I see no real sign of overunity yet. I think this long array is the equivalent of a large U-shaped track. If you had a track with one half of the 'U' at each end which were several inches or so high, and a fairly level long section between, you co uld probably extend that midsection quite a bit before seeing any real noticable performance loss. After giving it more consideration, I'm backing off my "2 meters" statement - it could probably roll for several and make it back up near the top of the opp osite half-U. Of course I haven't tried this, and probably won't. But I don't think this thing has any OU in it. If Greg's devices do, it's coming from that drop out relatively free from the fields. These flat linked attempts at rollaway have shown me tha t the thing is conventional so far. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 01:10:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Jun 97 04:05:50 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Something rotten in SMOT? Resent-Message-ID: <"T3FRQ3.0.qL4.alugp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8568 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Barry, > Better suggestion: Greg Watson provides kit containing > prefabricated closed loop SMOT. I agree, but I think he's saying that the kit won't need more than fitting together - no adjustments will be needed. That's pretty close, and makes packing and mailing a lot easier.... > I hate to say I told you so, but so far it appears as I > predicted---unless Greg himslef provides copies of the device, it > is not going to be replicatable. At the time, I agreed with your prediction, but it seems that at least one rather shaky multiple rollaround has been claimed, and several level rollaways. Not bad after so short a time. > If the inventor belives in his device, it makes *much* more sense > for him to provide demo copies for testing, rather than > instructions for copying. But isn't Greg doing both - or at least coming as close to that as the practical difficulties of packing permit? > Why doesn't just *one* of them break with tradition and provide > accesible working protoypes? I guess they are not *that* anxious > to alter the future of civilization.... You surely have read Rothwell's voluminous writings on the subject? They describe our position: we believe in complete disclosure and the inventor getting a slice of a huge cake, rather than his getting his usual share - 100% of a cake of zero size. So, here at least we are in full agreement with you. Greg's attitude has been mind-bogglingly sane. Your criticisms are very much on the mark, but Greg seems to have taken account of them before either you or we had a chance to make them. So, one way or another, this curious story should reach its conclus ion quite soon. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 01:34:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:32:59 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:31:45 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Rotary failure modes (was: Attempt.new.type.RMOD) Resent-Message-ID: <"_llyL3.0.hQ2.w6vgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8570 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 8:58 AM 6/21/97, mpower consultants wrote: [snip] > >In the SMOT, the ball is free to accelerate/decelerate > through the mag field/grav field differential. Likewise in the rotary design - provided it is fully symmetrical. > >Another factor appears to be the linked magnetic fields, > which may also help account for the difficulty in linking the linear SMOT's. >I may not be able to describe this accurately, but I'll give it a go: > The circular magnetic devices generally consist of a number of magnets > arranged in various fashions around a common center. > All of the various arrangements I have assembled had one point in common: > the magnetic fields blend together, and there is no longer an effective > 'asymmetric (sawtooth) cog' such as exists on the SMOT. That proves my point - the fields generated are no analagous. The central line of the magnetic flux must move away from the ball path at the same rate the ball fals out of the linear devices. The same hole must be contoured in the field. The same (rela tive) linkage fields also need be created, and this should happen if the ball path magnetic midline relationship is maintained. > >And thirdly, inertia appears to be an unsuitable replacement for gravity > as a counterpart force for the magnetic component of the SMOT. All > of the rotary devices which do not use gravity as a counterbalance to the > magnetic differential seem to grind to a halt. So far the above is also true of all the loop replications. Also, generating the right fields for a rotary device is a bit more difficult, true? >My observation is that the effect of the SMOT is a product of the > differential accelerations induced by a > magnetic field counterbalanced by a gravity field. How many ball densities have you tried? >The difference between inertia and Gravity should be obvious: > in the magnetic field the backforce provided by inertia > declines as the field is worked against (i.e. - momentum [K.E.] is >dissipated). > gravity provides a constant force (we generally *assume* - be careful here!) > which does not lessen during work in the magnetic field. We have at each point x on the ramp: a = F/m so we should be able to achieve a similar acceleration profile to the one that is obtained by reducing F = (Fm - Fg) (when increasing the force due to gravity Fg by inclining the ramp) by increasing m and (if necessary, i.e. non-linear) changing the magne tic force profile Fm at each point x to produce the same acceleration profile. This notion might be demonstrated by achieving rollaway with a flat ramp. Just curious about John Schnurer's report about trying the wedge shape with steel packing strap. Wasn't that test of his with 1/2" ball even *better* than a flat rollaway, or do I misunderstand? (See below) Further, if rolling is eliminated, the effects of storing of rotational kinetic energy can be exactly offset by increasing mass. The field dynamics are another matter though. > >so sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but... Not tidings, just opinions. > >MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM >* http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 >* (-latest update: 1997.06.15.12:30-) >***************************************************** At 9:20 PM 6/17/97, John Schnurer wrote: > Dear Vo., > > My SMOT modification: > > Steel packing strap for flux guide on outside. > 3/16 X 7/8 X 1 inch Nd Fe B magnets, fvie on each rail > "V" aluminum rail > Stable lift of 18 mm in length of 120 mm with > > a] 1/2 " ball, less than 1/2oz > b] 7/8 ... about 1 1/4 oz > c] 1 1/4 ... slightly more than 5 oz > > > a] zips right along, crashes into screwhead it can't clear, >leaps in air, crashes down to track.... exits with "great vigah" .. to >use the words of the late Jack Kennedy. > b] clears screwhead due to larger ball diameter riding higher on >track .... velocity slower .... exits > c] same as [b] ... but slower yet ... but does exit. > > Set up needs no adjustment ....works with all ball sizes. Not >optimized ..... made of tape and wood. > > SEE GREG ... I reported! > > > JHS > One big advantage to rotary devices is that the armature prevents the ball from jumping off the track, thus much stronger magnets can be used. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 02:36:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 02:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:31:05 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re : Re: Attempt at a new type of RMOD Resent-Message-ID: <"dsxnV1.0.-E5.K_vgp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8573 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 3:41 AM 6/21/97, JNaudin509@aol.com wrote: [snip] > >In the RMOD the gravity as no effect in the regauging process..... >I have tried to use kinetic energy and the non-linearity of the ball's path >for breaking the magnetic attraction. > >During my first series of tests the RMOD, once launched, rotates and STOPS >after a few time, the regauging effect is not sufficient to maintain the >rotation. It seems that the main problem comes from the material used for the >rotating balls. >As far as I am concerned, I think that I need to find the appropriated >material or alloy which have a low magnetic saturation. > >I shall try to explain what I think about this : > >The principle of my RMOD V2.0 device is the use of the kinetic energy to >regauge the system. But the kinetic energy at the exit must be greater than >the magnetic back drag of the magnetic ramp. > >During the first 2/3 of the path inside the magramp, the ball is accelerated >and converts the magnetic energy into kinetic energy, in this first part the >core of the ball is active and not magneticaly saturated. >When the ball reaches the saturation point, about at 20 mm BEFORE the higher >flux density area, the material should be magneticaly saturated and the ball >have the lowest magnetic permeability. At this point, all magnetic energy is >converted into kinetic energy. There will then be no further force on the ball, except drag due to eddy currents. The ball will not accelerate further, so there is no purpose to the rest of the ramp, or any further increase in B. >If the kinetic energy is sufficient to pass through the exit the regauging >effect is possible and we should be able to build an open system for ZPE >energy like a water wheel...... > >The use of K. Monel alloy ( specially Monel K500 ) seems good. This kind of >ball is commercially available in ball bearings of Monel K500. The saturation >of Monel alloy is reached at around 0.2 Teslas for 700000 A/m. > >I am working today on magnetic simulation with QuickField, if you are >interested, I can send you some designs. I am studying most particularly a >special design with a thin shell around the ball made with a high >permeability alloy like supermalloy. The main goal of this study is to find >the good setup which can create a magnetic shield just before the higher flux >density area ( drop zone ) but without reducing significantly the magnetic to >kinetic energy conversion during the first part (2/3) of the magnetic ramps. At the boundary to the shielded region there will be a major decellerating force, defeating the purpose of the shielding. An alternative is to use the wedge followed by a decrease, e.g. 1-2-3-4-5-3-3. The 3-3 region is equivalent to having 5-5 with 40 p ercent shielding. > >I hope that I have been explicit enough, I would like to now your point of >view about this thinking process. > >Nice to speak with you, > >Sincerely, > >Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) In just playing around a few weeks ago I had what appeared to be a rollaway using a piece of plexaglass for a track and a cylindrical ferrite core in place of a ball. I put the magnet under the track oriented to create an increasing B toward the end of t he ramp. The ramp was somewhat like so: M1 o o /\ o o N / \ o o / / o o / / o---------------- Table top \ /S \/ I think non-conductive material is very good for both the magnets and balls because it eliminates eddy losses. It seems like conductive material should be kept away from these devices. It appears to me that placing the magnet arrays above and/or below the track instead of on the sides may be very helpful, especially for turning corners, as it keeps the balls centered (no track necessary). In fact, based on the above experiment, magnets on top may not be necessary at all, except possibly to aid rollaway. For example, it may be useful to only place a magnet, or even only ferrous material, approximately at point M1 to help nudge the ball over the edge. However, a magnet array on top wo uld reduce drag due to ball weight. Therefore, it is the magnet array on the *bottom* that is not needed. An array on top would still provide a centering effect. Another variation might be to switch from a bottom magnet array to a top array midway up th e ramp, or some combination. The useful fact is that, if the configuration is such that the ball can not jump up in the air to the overhead magnetic array, it is an absolute fact that the ball will, upon going over the edge of the ramp, increase distance from the overhead magnet array and thus reduce pull, and thus escape from the overhead array and roll away. So, here's an overhead wedge array design, for example: m m m m m m M1 m m m o m o o o o o o ------------------------------------------------- Table top Of course the magnets might be much closer together and attached to a ferrous surface, etc. Please don't send me any GIFs or plans. I partially built a rotary device using plastic arms mounted on ball bearing spindle with ferrite cores at the end of the arms. The ball bearings are not very good. I haven't had time to continue work on it due t o home rapairs and travel to Anchorage for a music institute, etc. I am thinking about stopping all this fun stuff for some time and getting serious about doing backlogged chores and then getting prepared to make some money doing something I actually am (nearly) qualified to do. My son goes to college in a year. I barely have time to read this list now. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 02:56:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 02:54:52 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 02:54:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: Vortex Subject: Re: Very quick report on SMOT V2.0 beta. Resent-Message-ID: <"Db_nT.0.aI4.hJwgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8575 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > [Reposted here from e-mail] > > Martin Sevior wrote: > > [snip] > > > PS. Did I read correctly that you can trasnport a > > ball long distances with a series of magnet wedges > > stuck butt to tail? ie. > > (1-2-3-4)(2-3-4)(2-3-4)(2-3-4)? > > Yes, that's it. With the most recent addition of a 12345 pair on the end, > it's around 500mm long now, and it's amazing on the horizontal - the ball > moves pretty fast down the entire length. It shows no sign of weakness in > horizontal mode the more arrays I add. As a ramp, more mags increase the > final height too. I wish I had 1000 or so magnets, I'd just keep going and > see where it started to weaken. It would sure be weird if it didn't! > This is very, very interesting. My intuition for the magnetic potential energy is that a (2-3-4) ramp in the middle of your array would be roughly the lowest point, not the end of the ramp. It seems very hard to believe that the magetic field intensity is continually increasing throughout the array - this is the classical analysis of why the ball climbs to near the end of your typical SMOT ramp as described very nicely my Micheal Schaeffer. Your very long ramp behaviour is counter-intuitive to me. Clearly there is some energy required to transport the ball through all those magnets. Where does it come from? Where does the ball end up in your extremely long array? Your post has inspired me to try a different approach to linking. Till now my method has been to stick two working SMOT's together. Clearly the placement of the magnets in the receiving ramps should be much further back. I find my SMOT usually fails becau se the second SMOT can't capture the ball, it stays attached to the end of the first SMOT. > On a good day, with freshly cleaned/polished rails and carefully aligned > magnets, it can get between 12mm and 15mm of lift, which isn't a big deal > really, because a single 12345 pair can do that. But the arrays are fairly > loose, I think about 27mm or more, What does that mean? Do you mean they're 27 mm apart? Is this the thickness of a stack of magnets? > using 3/8" high magnets stacked only 4 > deep (except for the final array I just set on the end - from the "Mark II" > experiment). My next experiment is to try making a level track section at > the top, and see if I can loosen up the arrays even more there, then > continue to flare them out across a slight decline from the level summit. I > see nice 'fake' rollaways from the flared end array with only the slightest > downward track tilt. > Good idea. I should put a bit of work into polishing up my system. Using an un-optimized V2.0 I was less than 1 mm from a genuine roll away. > Always intriguing, but the real goodies always seem "just out of reach". > Seems like that to me too. > One other thing this long array has taught me is about the collection of > any excess energy as momentum in these things: you can't do it, at least as > we're configuring them now. Sometimes I'm fiddling with the array or trying > for lift, and the ball won't pass the next to last array or something. So I > adjust and fiddle some more, and it still won't go. So in frustration > sometimes, I start 'spiking' the ball into the entrance, and it *still* > won't go. I've even shot it in like a marble off my thumb with quite a bit > of force in circumstances like this, and not had it pass the flaw or weak > spot - then I might just polish the rails a little bit, and the ball makes > it up from a standing start. Obviously there is a time dependent process at > work as the ball passes magnets. Eddy current growth and decay rates, > magnetization and demag rates, or a combination, or maybe something else. > But if you try to exceed the 'speed limit', the effect just runs negative > on the ball at that point, and there's no gain, just the braking off of the > excess speed. You can spike through one ramp and not really see this, but > the braking effect is obvious on the long ramp. [snip] Very interesting! I guess too fast and the eddy currents cause too much drag. Too slow and the ball can't "tunnel" through the various magnetic hills. I still can't fathom why this system works. It's totally fascinating! Do our resident magetic field expe rts have an idea? This is a very interesting alternative approach. I have a mind to start churning out 1-2-3-4-5 magnets so I'll have a go at this too. Maybe not 0.5 meters but say 4 or 5 of (1-2-3-4-5) pairs. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 03:02:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 03:01:16 -0700 Date: 21 Jun 97 05:59:57 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Something rotten in SMOT? Resent-Message-ID: <"95B633.0.SW4.hPwgp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8576 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick, > Or perhaps just as likely live forever among the "undead"? > Sometimes I think *I'm* amongst them already, with 'success at > last' lurking just one little adjustment away... ... maybe a > fresh ball ... ... polish the rails a little here ... ... Yes, I was thinking about that when I wrote. But, if people can't get Greg's kits to work, then the whole thing is dead as far as I'm concerned. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 07:20:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 07:19:28 -0700 From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stop the car, .... Minn-Kota motors Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 09:29:28 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net References: <2694609020.11017634@compcafe.co.uk> Lines: 29 Resent-Message-ID: <"lqZzJ.0.PC3.lB-gp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3939 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >I was hoping to point out that electric motor development is being constantly >undertaken by industry's employees who would probably be sacked if they were >found playing with fridge magnets and ball-bearings. I believe that there is >as much chance, however, of stumbling upon OU by such practices as there is >by more scientific progression from existing technologies. Every radical new concept I know of in the history of technologies has come from those who didn't know "that can't be done" so they went a head and did it. Industry, and the health field for that matter, is great at making incremental improvements, not new ideas. They don't seem to have much to offer in some thing new. They also like to have marketing departments that ask "what would you like to see?". What would have happened if a hypothetical marketing department went out and asked the populace "Would you like a TV?" before they where invented. Some how I don't think there would have been many takers. --- NOTE: I have a new e-mail address: bpaddock@csonline.net For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 10:18:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 10:17:21 -0700 From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Peregrinus & Neutral Line Date: 21 Jun 1997 17:24:12 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"tihMy1.0.T83.Wo0hp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3940 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Has anyone reconsidered the Peregrinus (?) magnetic motor with the Gary Neutral Line description in mind? It might explain how it's meant to work. I'll ponder as time allows. The only 'recent' reports of it I've read said something about how a group made one, got it working and then dismantled it. I just don't believe that! ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 12:26:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:25:14 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:22:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: SMOT as Time Machine Resent-Message-ID: <"Hzs7h3.0.MB.Og2hp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8587 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick, [snip] >Instead of a driveway, you'd have a >spur section and a blue hole at the end to drop through to your sunken >garage (better get that suspension upgraded on the DeLorean). > >- Rick Monteverde, gently deteriorating in: >Honolulu, HI > While you're at it better get a new body for that DeLorean, they were made of stainless steel, not very good for smotting along. Dan, picking away... X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 13:14:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:09:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vor tex-l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Something rotten in SMOT? Resent-Message-ID: <"jVNRQ.0.AS6.XK3hp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8592 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Rick Monteverde wrote: >Or perhaps just as likely live forever among the "undead"? Sometimes I >think *I'm* amongst them already, with 'success at last' lurking just one >little adjustment away... ... maybe a fresh ball ... ... polish the >rails a little here ... ... > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > >"zzzzooppp-whup-p-p-p...(clickety-clackity)...ka-CHUNK" >[ball sticking up under magnet array, then entire array alignment being >destroyed during fat-fingered recovery attempt] > LOL! (albeit a bit nervously)... Rick, you get my humorist-of-the-week award... I *think* it's funny... How many times has that happened to every one of us? Have you tried working with NdFeB for really wacky adventures? Epitaxy's got big glass balls on glass rails and big Neo magnets; he must wear body armor when working on the thing. Dan Quickert X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 13:40:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:38:23 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: SMOT Effects vs Magnetic Refrigeration Patents. Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 20:38:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"5Pp7m1.0.933._k3hp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8593 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 07:34 PM 6/21/97 +0000, Rick wrote: >Frederick - > > > All of these steps in a SMOT setup, when you take > > all of the "artifacts" like ball temp, air temp, > > geomagnetic field, track temp, etc., into account? > > :-) > >Ok, if it helps me get a level rollaway. :) Probably can, if the "rollaway" ramp is immersed in melted solder (lead-free, 95.5% tin, 4% Cu, 0.5% Ag, M.P. 500 F). Of course now you're talking serious heat engine. :-) Regards, Frederick > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 15:27:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:26:16 -0700 From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) Newsgroups: list.freenrg1 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Less EMF Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:44:25 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net Lines: 62 Resent-Message-ID: <"_cDdz3.0.9A7.7K5hp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3941 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I got a interesting catalog in the mail the mail today. Its not my intention to be a commercial for these people, but it has lots of interesting things in it, and lots of books. Some of these things are a bit questionable to me, but they do have real equipment as well. Here are some examples: "Magnetic Field Viewer Card": Finally, a way to actually "see" DC magnetic fields from permanent magnets or magnetized metals with out messy iron fillings! You can use this amazing film over and over to view the location and number of poles on any magne t. Just lay the card on the magnet to see the polar pattern. Magnetic poles appear as dark areas and the light areas represent where the N and S poles meet. A great inexpensive magnetic detector for finding objects in your environment that have become magnetized. Uses no batteries. Also great for science projects. Dimensions: 2-1/2" x 4" (Cat. #B1120) $2.75. "The Cybercap [Sunglasses for your brain": Protect your brain from RF pollution with this handsome baseball style hat. Specifically designed to shield the head from frequencies of AM through microwave, including radar and cellular phone frequencies. Se wn from a sophisticated metalized fabric with extremely high reflective characteristics. The EMR waves actually bounce off the fabric with little or no absorption and no electrostatic discharging. Research links RF radiation with behavioral and cellular disturbances. Many people can actually sense the differences in the levels of "mind noise" from RF radiation. CyberCap shields your brain for RF pollution and provides your brain a quite place without interference to your mental processes from RF radiation. Specify color: Silver or Copper. $39.95 "The Micro Harmonizer: Portable and Pleasant: About the size of a small pager, the Micro Harmonizer is a convenient portable high quality scalar signal generator [Any one care to comment on how you measure the 'quality' of a scalar signal? EMF/RF leakag e?] with a frequency stabilized 7.83 Hz output. Now you can surround yourself with the Earth's rhythmic pulse wherever you go and balance your immediate environment in the midst of eletromagnetic chaos. Fits neatly in your pocket or use unbreakable meta l belt clip. Easy to use switches for 7.83 Hz or 3.91 Hz [Whats 3.91 Hz?], both at either at high or low settings? http://www.lessemf.com e-mail: lessemf@lessemf.com -- NOTE: I have a new e-mail address: bpaddock@csonline.net For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 16:33:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 02:22:12 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: half-meter SMOT image (24K) Resent-Message-ID: <"H10U11.0.i35.RI6hp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8601 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Rick, My hand is healing quickly. According my hypothesis, the return flux should be present on the path of the ball. If you not get roll away with this one you may try separating each blocks a bit to return flux enter little between. I guarantee an effective breaking effect with this if roll away is not realized. Regards, Hamdi Ucar, The Expert X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 15:41:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:38:47 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Long SMOT ramp behavior Resent-Message-ID: <"fcc3I.0.EF3.4X5hp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8597 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 10:37 AM 6/21/97 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: >I'm not sure whether to be amazed that this long ramp works as well as it >does, or just write it off as another of the SMOT's deceptions. We experimented with a similar configuration but, in yr parlance, it was a bunch of 2-2-2-2 arrays butted together. In other words, simply a long section of track lined with double rows of magnets on each side. The ball entered the magnet area and accele rated to a suprisingly high speed, zooming down to the other end of the magnets where it "bounces" off the mag potential well. It would never exit the far end, even when the track was level. Seemed normal to me. Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 16:04:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:02:14 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:02:08 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: Vortex Subject: Re: Very quick report on SMOT V2.0 beta. Resent-Message-ID: <"FS0fq.0.fQ.qr5hp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8599 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Martin Sevior wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > > > [Reposted here from e-mail] > > > > Martin Sevior wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > PS. Did I read correctly that you can trasnport a > > > ball long distances with a series of magnet wedges > > > stuck butt to tail? ie. > > > (1-2-3-4)(2-3-4)(2-3-4)(2-3-4)? > > > > Yes, that's it. With the most recent addition of a 12345 pair on the end, > > it's around 500mm long now, and it's amazing on the horizontal - the ball > > moves pretty fast down the entire length. It shows no sign of weakness in > > horizontal mode the more arrays I add. As a ramp, more mags increase the > > final height too. I wish I had 1000 or so magnets, I'd just keep going and > > see where it started to weaken. It would sure be weird if it didn't! Hi Martin! If your array is easily disassembled, one thing you could do (using only the magnets you have) is to plot the array length versus the amount of lift attainable through tilting the array. Even without having many magnets, you could quickly see if the lift ing height is a linear function of the array length, or if the graph is curving down and starting to approach a limit. If doubling the array length always doubles the lifting height, does this imply excess energy? I don't have a solid feel for this relationship. Shouldn't a longer and longer array give less and less lifting height, until maximum height is obtained via a VERY long array? I suspect that this is the case, since for a long thin array, increasing the array length shouldn't increase the force exerted by the end "pole" of the array. At least, according to C of E it should work like this. If it does not, then we can dispense with SMOT structure and simply use very long simple arrays. > > Sometimes I'm fiddling with the array or trying > > for lift, and the ball won't pass the next to last array or something. So I > > adjust and fiddle some more, and it still won't go. So in frustration > > sometimes, I start 'spiking' the ball into the entrance, and it *still* > > won't go. I've even shot it in like a marble off my thumb with quite a bit > > of force in circumstances like this, and not had it pass the flaw or weak > > spot - then I might just polish the rails a little bit, and the ball makes > > it up from a standing start. Obviously there is a time dependent process at > > work as the ball passes magnets. Eddy current growth and decay rates, > > magnetization and demag rates, or a combination, or maybe something else. > > But if you try to exceed the 'speed limit', the effect just runs negative > > on the ball at that point, and there's no gain, just the braking off of the > > excess speed. You can spike through one ramp and not really see this, but > > the braking effect is obvious on the long ramp. I noticed this too (on an untilted ramp.) Some of it comes from a weird friction source: the ball moves fast, then the magnets suddenly brake it while NOT stopping it's spin. The ball halts first, THEN its spin is stopped by friction against the rails. When this occurs, the KE of the ball is eaten up, and it doesn't oscillate or continue forward as one might expect. If you launch a ball backwards through the array, this doesn't seem to happen. Assymetry. Strange to watch it drift backwards through the system from a standing start, when in the same system it will not pass the "braking" point even if launched violent ly by hand! Another thought: I wonder if the graphite on the track affects conductivity of the contact points between ball and aluminum. Maybe n-gauge track would act differently, not having a conductive link between the two halves. (I don't have any to mess with, just aluminum extrusion.) .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 17:20:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:18:22 -0700 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 03:08:45 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Speed kills Resent-Message-ID: <"cKJzf.0.lt2.Dz6hp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8604 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Yes, the excess acceleration and deceleration cause sliding and kill the KE (it can be hear). Remedy is use of heavier balls, lifting the track respect to magnets, decrease the gradient or weakening the magnetism. And other critical sliding point is the top rounding of the exit. If the radius is large, ball start to get down without slowing enough and loosing weight it slide. Regards, Hamdi Ucar, The Hang-Glider X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 16:52:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:49:07 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:55:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Deep Breath (count to 10 - again.again) Resent-Message-ID: <"E0od2.0.Pm1.oX6hp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8602 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com > >Or perhaps just as likely live forever among the "undead"? Sometimes I > >think *I'm* amongst them already, with 'success at last' lurking just one > >little adjustment away... ... maybe a fresh ball ... ... polish the > >rails a little here ... ... > > > >- Rick Monteverde > >Honolulu, HI > > > > > >"zzzzooppp-whup-p-p-p...(clickety-clackity)...ka-CHUNK" > >[ball sticking up under magnet array, then entire array alignment being > >destroyed during fat-fingered recovery attempt] > > > > LOL! (albeit a bit nervously)... Rick, you get my humorist-of-the-week > award... I *think* it's funny... How many times has that happened to every > one of us? Have you tried working with NdFeB for really wacky adventures? > Epitaxy's got big glass balls on glass rails and big Neo magnets; he must > wear body armor when working on the thing. > > Dan Quickert > AND someone 'earlier asked' then WHY WASN'T THIS DISCOVERED BEFORE..! (to them Try-it, You'll LIKE-it You'll KNOW why!) Off again to BITE+ it (Be infinite to Everything) adjustment - wise "TRY_THAT for body armour" :) yes, I'm still smiling, but has anyone else noted that for up being down.. lower/slower being better for a "obviously EaSy ExPeRiMeNt", This is teaching us lessons in about 10 different fields of observation.. (I won't even join the mag-cooling group yet, BUT if that works too .. this better be worth something (effort-wise)). I know I threw down my pre-adolescence MAGnets years ago...knowing THIS WENT NO-W HERE. Why are my 'older Wiser-eyes so Blinded' by the Blue-hole. It's not like we're building a Mechanical Wheat Reaper or anything :) is it?? -se- ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 21:17:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:16:57 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 23:15:15 -0500 From: andrew Reply-To: gyro@centuryinter.net Organization: the truth is out there To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: o/u light !!! Resent-Message-ID: <"nxmI-.0.xT3.tSAhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3942 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I have an idea for a free energy light. I have not tried this but plan to when I can find enough solar cells. My idea is to take an ordinary flourcent (sorry for the spelling) light (about a 18" or 24") and place it inside a box with the inside covered wi th solar cells. I have heard that florcesnt lights are very effecent and that it takes very little energy to run them so I thought this might work. Any comments, suggestions, or cheap solar cell suppliers welcome. I am going on a trip tomarrow and won't b e back till next friday so don't expect an answer soon. Andrew R. Gyro@centuryinter.net X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 22:04:33 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:01:04 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: cougar.isg.siue.edu: wrichar owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:05:47 -0500 (CDT) From: WARREN RICHARDS X-Sender: wrichar@cougar To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: KANSAS CITY: scalars/multi-state control devices Resent-Message-ID: <"pU9Ci.0.qo4.F6Bhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3943 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com (word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2) Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 Sponsored by Vangard Sciences PO BOX 1031 Mesquite, TX 75150 There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS on duplicating, publishing or distributing the files on KeelyNet except where noted! September 2, 1993 DNOYES.ASC -------------------------------------------------------------------- This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Bill Donavan. -------------------------------------------------------------------- An Encounter With Doyle Noyes By Bill Donavan The first time I had ever heard about Doyle Noyes was in March, 1991. It was when Andrew Michrowski of the Planetary Association for Clean Energy visited Stelle, Illinois. There was a lunch consisting of a vegetarian pizza which Ginger Tharp cooked up for the occasion. It was a cozy little get-together with Andrew and his wife Monique Michaud, myself, Tim Wilhelm, Ginger cooking and managing the video equipment recording the meeting, and others coming and going through the community center where we had our lunch. The conversation was fascinating to say the least. A line from "Alice in Wonderland" immediately comes to mind, about "believing in several impossible things before breakfast". An air-well concept was discussed by which the community could obtain all their fresh water practically out of thin air. Then the conversation turned to "scalar aerials". This was a discovery by Doyle Noyes, who then lived in Kansas City Missouri, of obtaining free energy from certain antenna geometries as well as heating and cooling and corrosion control. This fascinated me. It piqued my curiosity. I had to know how this worked, since according to Andrew Michrowski and Tom Bearden this phenomena had actually been documented as having produced a measurable effect. Absolutely fascinating. How do I contact this guy? Dr. Michrowski gave me his phone number in Missouri. I found that Noyes had moved into a rather remote location in the Ozarks for an unknown reason. After talking to Mr. Noyes, I discovered that he was offering distributorships in his company, Multistate Control Systems. At this point in my naivete, I believed everything was on-the-level. I then contacted a buddy of mine, Rick Bassett, about this "marvelous opportunity". Basically what Noyes was asking for was $600.00 for a weekend-long educational seminar detailing the operation of his system including the "territory" of the state of Illinois for his scalar heating and cooling system. "Oh, by the way, send me a photograph of each of you". Noyes said. "Is this for identification purposes, or something?" I said. "Uh, yeah." "Well, if we're leaving in a few days it might not get Page 1 there in time. It seems to be just an additional complication to me." "It is absolutely essential." "I really don't think you're going to find two guys passing themselves off as us, if that's what you're worried about". "Just send'em, O.K.? I'll explain later". This seemed strange, and it in time evolved into an even stranger story. I reasoned that since there was money involved, if this were indeed such a "golden opportunity" there might also conceivably be those who would try to pass themselves off as the individuals who paid in the considerable sum to get in on this thing. So it seemed at the time. Anyway, it sounded good to both of us, and we set out for The Ozarks. Mr. Noyes made it abundantly clear that he did not want to meet at his house, and a meeting place was arranged at a local motel (another curious point in retrospect). We arrived somewhat late, and went directly to the motel room. There were two other guys there, one from the Monroe Institute and another from Ohio. They did not look happy. There were multicolored loops of wire strewn all over the beds. Some appeared to be wound up into loosely-arranged coils of various lengths and sizes. There were two lengths of what appeared to be one or two-ought electrical cable wrapped up in electrical tape, evidently containing a coil of smaller-diameter wire wound on top of it and wrapped in electrical tape. The room looked ordinary enough. "Whose is that?" I asked, pointing at an old VOM sitting on the bed. I suspected that one of the two in the room brought along his own test equipment. "Oh, that's his", came the reply. "Doyle's?" I said. "Yeah." "But it's so..... old!" "Yup, that's his." Red flags went off. A myriad of conflicting data went through my mind. Either he just left an expendable piece of equipment behind, or his company was not making that much money. It was at this point I knew something was wrong. "Have you learned anything yet?" I said. "No, not really." said the man from the Monroe Institute. "How long have you been here?" "A couple of days". This did not bode well. We talked for a while on a few related topics, and compared how each of us became acquainted with Doyle Noyes' system. Then Doyle breezed in, introduced himself to Rick and I, and looked at a large wall mirror at the end of the room. He inched toward it with a look of concentration on his face. "They're watching us". Doyle said. "Who's watching us?" I said. "The people on the other side of the mirror." "O.K....." Rick said. "They can see and hear everything we say. I can see them too. Can you see them?" Eyes widened as we looked at each other. Not a word was spoken. He then walked over to the mirror and extended his right hand, touching the surface of the mirror with fingers splayed as he closed his eyes. Page 2 "Close, close, close." Doyle said. He then dropped his hand, looked at the mirror, and repeated the ritual. "Sometimes you have to do it more than once. It's closed now, they can't see or hear us." Doyle announced with confidence. "Oh... good" said the man from Ohio. "Excuse me, Doyle, but why did you need our photographs?" I said. "To make sure. You see, I dowse them to make sure you weren't Russian agents or space aliens". "I see. Do you get many of those?" "You would be surprised." "Uh-huh." I said as a vision of the money which was paid in my mind's eye slowly evaporated into the ethers. "Let's go out to eat." Doyle said. The gang of four and the man himself hiked over in the direction of a fast food restaurant across the street. "No, not there, they're expecting us there." Doyle said. We then sauntered over to a restaurant nearby to the motel. The waitress seated us and passed around the menus. "Hi, Doyle. How are the aliens?" She said. "Fine." Doyle said, looking up. He then pulled out a photograph and a white pendulum and started swinging it over the photo. "This is how you find out if they are O.K. You can find out if they're aliens or not too." The rest of the conversation basically consisted of the group asking specific questions about the scalar heating and cooling system and Doyle steering the conversation back toward aliens and Russian agents. He also added to the menagerie of those organizations threatening to steal his secrets of the universe. I never asked why he was so willing to sell those same secrets if they were so valuable, and so dangerous in the wrong hands. I think at this point my weariness of the situation began to show, as I listened to the conversation taking place with a chin resting on my palm. Doyle looked at me. "I can read minds too." Doyle said. "Fine. What am I thinking?" I said. Doyle began vigorously swinging the pendulum. "That's not my photograph." I said. He didn't say a word. After lunch Doyle decided it would be a good time to show us the campground that Rick and I would be staying at. Doyle rode with us in the pickup truck. "I see you have quite a bit of equipment." Doyle said. "Yeah, we hope to do some testing of one of your units." Rick said. "Well, by the time this weekend is over, you'll be able to see a completed unit in operation, and you'll be able to take it back with you. I'll also need your help with programming them with some kind of control matrix." Doyle said. "I noticed that you didn't drive." I said. "Well, that was because of the attack." Doyle said. "What kind of attack?" I said. "It was a scalar electromagnetic beam from the Soviets. It made me lose consciousness and drive off the road. I was in the hospital for a while. Anyway, my wife who was in the car at the time won't let me drive anymore." "O.K." Page 3 "We need to get you guys all set up as soon as possible, since I expect another two to come in very soon and I need to start another seminar". "Well, we're ready to do the assembly and testing as soon as possible, since we kind of have a schedule to keep too." Rick said. "I want to show you guys the lab that I plan on setting up." Doyle said. We drove around as he directed until we came to an abandoned building on the top of a hill. It was in good condition, white in color, and rather large in size. I had to admit it was a good location, being in a peaceful wooded area nestled high in the Ozarks. Despite Doyle's personal problems, I sincerely hoped he could pull it off. If his unit indeed worked, it would be encouraging to see a production and R&D facility operational. Especially for something as exotic as scalar electromagnetics. We finally arrived at the campsite. "I got you guys the best site here. Nice and remote." Doyle said. It certainly was an idyllic setting next to a lake about 200 feet away. The weather was warm enough that a campfire would be more of a decoration than a necessity. "I want to show you an example of weather modification." Doyle said. He then proceeded to draw what seemed a pictorial diagram of one of his scalar systems. He then held his hand over the drawing and made an obscure gesture while mumbling something. "It should start cooling down in about 10 minutes." He said with a grin. Rick and I looked at each other. "But there is no physical device." I said. "You don't need one." Doyle said. Now I know that in some cases scalar electromagnetics tends to blur into psionics or psychotronics, but it doesn't blur THAT much. I could see a perturbed look spread across Rick's face and could safely assume what he was thinking, since I felt the same way. "But you tested a device for Andrew..." I said. "This should be just as effective. See, it's starting to cool down already!" I really couldn't feel anything other than a slight shift in the wind direction. "You should watch what you say around here, by the way." Doyle said. I could just see it coming. "There could be either Russian agents or the CIA monitoring your conversations. Watch out for anybody parking a camper right next to your site." Doyle said. "What about space aliens?" I said. "They won't use campers." Doyle said. We deposited Doyle back at the motel and went back to the campsite. The tone of the night was somber. Rick built a fire and we "shot the bull" about several subjects. "I think this thing is all in his head." Rick said. "You mean it isn't a physical device? They tested a device in Ottawa, I mean a physical device. There's test data." I said. "Then maybe he's trying to sell us something else." "He promised us a device to bring back." "Unless the 'device' is a few magical incantations scribbled on a piece of paper." "Better not be. It sounds like vaporware to me. You can't charge Page 4 hundreds of dollars for something like that and get away with it." "Unless you're too embarrassed to admit to getting taken in by something like that." "True. Very true." I watched the fire dance through the air and wondered about the whole situation. If this thing were a shell game, it would cast a pall upon the credibility of PACE and those who gave favorable reviews of this thing, let alone references to this guy. I thought about the amount of money taken in by the "seminars". Six hundred dollars per person. Two people per week. That's twelve hundred dollars per week, sixty two thousand four hundred dollars per year. Not bad. I also thought about the clandestine meetings in motel rooms, and the insistence on not seeing where he lives. Doyle mentioned that he moved from Kansas City because of the high crime rate in the city, and I wondered if there might be another motive. If you were going to run a successful scam operation, you wouldn't want to be very visible. A visible target is an easy target. I walked to the rocky beach and looked at the clear diamond sky, watching a thousand twinkling stars reflected in the wavelets of the lake. There was a lodge across the lake which lent multicolored shimmering reflections to the water. It was absolutely wonderful, something I really preferred to an antiseptic motel room. I hadn't taken the opportunity to go camping for years, and this was a welcome diversion. I thought about Doyle's space aliens and looked up at the starlit sky. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary, not even a plane with its' navigation strobes on. A boat crossed the lake in the distance, and I thought how great it would be to live in an environment like this. Once again, I hoped that it wasn't a scam, and that I would get a chance to work on something that would be on the frontier of a future science. If nothing else, there was hope. The next day was more of the same. Nothing was done except a lot of what I would consider evasive banter. Nothing was built. To soothe the feelings of the four in the "seminar", Doyle took us out to dinner, sensing the dissatisfaction rising among us. It was a rather nice restaurant with an excellent view of the lake. The food was good, and the conversation (as always) turned to the CIA, space aliens, and Soviet scalar beams trained upon Doyle. "Yeah, I blew them up. I back-fed enough power STRAIGHT THROUGH THE EARTH to take out those Soviet scalar transmitters. And since then they don't bother me. At least until they build another one. And the aliens know that I can destroy their ships if I want to with my technology. They haven't got a chance." "About the system that you have, what kind of limitations does it have?" I said. "Anywhere from absolute zero to the temperature of the sun." Doyle said. "Then why can't you heat a building using the scalar stuff alone?" This went back to a report I had read by Andrew Michrowski, that basically stated that it only worked for supplemental heating. That question went unanswered. It was ignored. He went back to a diatribe on aliens and weather control. Page 5 After the dinner we went back to the motel, where Doyle told us about the "mind interfaces" that we would need to work on the project. These were the two-ought electrical cables wrapped up in electrical tape that I had seen earlier. They were to be draped across the shoulders and were allegedly self-powered. I assumed from the description that these units were basically psychotronic amplifiers designed to "boost the signal level" of the user. I measured a slight increase in potential difference with a fluke true RMS multimeter when a girl associated with Doyle held the probes in each hand amounting to a few microvolts, not quite enough to clear the background noise. Rick asked Doyle about the schematics for the system, for if he didn't have something completed for us, at least he could give us instructions for doing it when we got back. We went to a friend of his who had a pc-compatible machine, as evidently the "schematics" were on this. I thought it was odd that Doyle didn't have a machine of his own with this on it, if it indeed were as valuable as he claimed it to be. The gang of four went to his friend's place, the back of a pawn shop in town, and we proceeded to wade through the files in his PC. The usual discussion about space alien effluvia bandied about as the "schematics" were searched for. When I saw a printout of what Doyle considered to be schematics, I began to understand where he was coming from. They weren't schematics. They looked more like ladder-logic diagrams. They definitely were NOT schematics in any sense of the word. If Doyle had any formal education, it definitely was not as an electronic tech. In fact, the man had a definite disdain for that particular profession. I had the impression that he might have had an intuitive "feel" for this invention without any formal education associated with it. That is common for many inventors. The explanation for this phenomenon is that they usually do not know what cannot be done and proceed to do it anyway. And they usually succeed at it. That says something there. That reminds me of the tale of a religious ecstatic who crosses a gorge without a bridge. "You can't do that," the physics student says, "That's against the law of gravity!" The ecstatic then replies: "I never studied law." And continues across. I think that the same thing applies here, if indeed there is any credible element to this situation at all. After the "seminar", we gave one individual in the troop a ride to the airport and compared notes. The consensus opinion was that he may have had something, but if he did he refused to share it. In this case the cost far outweighed the risks involved, and for those with limited resources the setback represented by this was considerable. The net tendency was for those to become generally disgusted with the situation, to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and to forget about it. Scalar electromagnetic weather control, corrosion control, heating and cooling. Is this for real? I really can't say, since I didn't see anything demonstrated. Rick Bassett and I came to a remote location in the Ozarks with a pickup truck bed literally loaded with Page 6 electronic test equipment, taking time out from our regular jobs to investigate this. And we found nothing but wild theories, unfounded conjecture, and just plain hot air. The "schematic" which was brought back was well nigh useless. The only thing we brought back were three four by six planks about ten feet long with about fifty pounds of wire, which by request was sent back to Doyle. Evidently he didn't have enough lumber or wire for the next scam operation. I really would like to believe that this system works. It would be a major breakthrough. I am also aware of the scam operations that John Worrell Keely pulled when he was short of capital to continue his research, so I can understand the reasoning behind this particular technique. But in the present there is no excuse for this, and I cannot in good conscience bury this and wish that it will go away all by itself. I don't know how many others have been victimized by following this illusion, however sweet it may be. But it is time to call for accountability for those responsible for this. For those who are seriously interested in alternative and "free energy", this kind of behavior cannot be allowed to continue. To do this would result in a total demolition of credibility in the entire community of those conducting research into this field. That is what is in danger. I have tried to keep an objective view of this entire "adventure". I have basically reported the events as they occurred, however distasteful they may be. This basically has been written down as a record for myself more than anything else. If at some point in the future I encounter some extraordinary phenomena which deserves praise, that's exactly what it will get. Until then, I impatiently await that day. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Vangard Note.. An associated KeelyNet file is MAGICSQ which deals with magic squares and how they can be "constructed" with coils and other electrical components in such a fashion as to produce replicating, kaleidoscope "mirrors" for the express purpose of redirecting or focusing energy. Much like a parabolic mirror. The Perrigo patent used a series of coils (10 X 10), wrapped around nails and all connected together to form a matrix or pattern which sequentially collected energy from what was termed an "Aether collector". If energy continually flows into the planet, then there is a "wind" which should be able to drive a substance or compound of substances. My personal opinion is that such a device would be best constructed by using Chladni vibrating waveplates injected INTO a substance. This would create a "tuneable" interference matrix associated with the substance and thus act as a down-converter or frequency divider for the flow of force. I too have seen one of these Noyes Matrixes and it consisted of multiple colors of wire wound on 3 arms that all converged in the center. The man selling them wanted $1000 and claimed that you could "feel" a hot Page 7 or cold wind over them. I tried as did several of my friends and none of us could feel a thing. The man also "dowsed" it and said "woops, I had it turned off", he then fiddled with some wires and said to try again. Once more we tried and nothing could be felt. I asked if any temperature measurements had been made and the man said that regular temperature measuring instruments WOULD NOT WORK with this technology! I also asked what was the basis for the device operation and the man said it was secret but I could buy the unit for $1000 and find it out. Colored wires and 2 X 4s that did nothing for $1000, yeah, RIGHT! But I do have a friend, Dr. Dan Haley who visited Doyle Noyes while he was still in Missouri. Dan says Noyes was located in a 2 story building and when he visited it was very cold outside. Dan reports that the temperature in the building was quite comfortable and he did notice one very odd thing. As he was walking down a stairway, he held onto a metal railing which WAS WARM TO THE TOUCH! Now, metal is normally cool and that was quite an interesting observation. I guess the question is "DOES IT WORK FOR YOU?". That is not really a marketable approach nor one that most people could duplicate, so I think I will devote my energies to duplicatable, verifiable devices. I agree 150% with Mr. Donavan's contention as to CLAIMS that are not substantiated by physical proofs. My personal experience (Jerry) has been that I have NEVER SEEN a WORKING free energy device or anti-gravity device. Nor have I EVER claimed to have built a device of this nature. There are many who DO make claims, even to the point of wanting to "share" their knowledge, however, experience has shown this is usually followed by a request for money or non-disclosure and/or a secrecy vow. Based on the limited histories we have regarding these "alternative technologies" such primitive attitudes will NOT result in the public use of the principles except within the domain (and DOMINION) of secretive people. It is a pity that some choose to withhold the majority of their information and learning from history, it has been shown such knowledge dies with the inventor or is otherwise repressed. We must all remain on our guard and continue to OPENLY share information. There is no doubt that some devices can be considered "proprietary" if they are intended for commercial profit OR are outright WEAPONS. That is the main reason for the establishment of KeelyNet, to make freely available a wide range of information that in itself holds keys to HOW we might approach the construction of working machines. We can only hope that everyone will grow into a "walks the talk" mode. Escape to a higher order! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet -------------------------------------------------------------------- If we can be of service, you may contact Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 8 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 23:28:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 23:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:20:52 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: KANSAS CITY: scalars/multi-state control devices Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"_UHkv1.0.lC1.cMChp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3944 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > The conversation was fascinating to say the least. A line from > "Alice in Wonderland" immediately comes to mind, about "believing in > several impossible things before breakfast". An air-well concept This reminds me of a quote from "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy"..... "If youve done 6 impossible things this morning, why not top it all off with breakfast at Milliways, the restaurant at the end of the universe! Just an observation. :) John X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 05:13:15 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 05:12:23 -0700 From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: gyro@centuryinter.net Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: o/u light !!! Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 08:04:37 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net References: <33ACA6D3.7A13@centuryinter.net> Lines: 21 Resent-Message-ID: <"ym6Dd3.0.Ng7.cQHhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3945 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >I have an idea for a free energy light. I have not tried this but plan >to when I can find enough solar cells. My idea is to take an ordinary >flourcent (sorry for the spelling) light (about a 18" or 24") and place >it inside a box with the inside covered with solar cells. I have heard >that florcesnt lights are very effecent and that it takes very little I'd check the spectrum output from the light, verses what spectrum the solar cell actually converts to electricity before I'd spend lots of $ on this. While the light may have a high efficiency compared to a incandescent bulb, solar cells are very low ef ficiency devices. -- NOTE: I have a new e-mail address: bpaddock@csonline.net For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 07:08:27 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 07:07:28 -0700 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:33:38 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Mk 2 Adjustments Resent-Message-ID: <"vGAJe2.0.Uf2.U6Jhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3946 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have added a section on adjusting SMOT Mk 2 ramps to my site. The adjustment procedure is quite different to the SMOT Mk 1 ramps. I have also included some QField sims of the SMOT Mk 2 fields. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 19:52:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 17:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 08:52:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: SMOT Mk 2 Adjustments Resent-Message-ID: <"GMxzx3.0.k13.kYShp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8625 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Greg Watson wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I have added a section on adjusting SMOT Mk 2 ramps to my site. The >> adjustment procedure is quite different to the SMOT Mk 1 ramps. >> >> I have also included some QField sims of the SMOT Mk 2 fields. >> > >Hi Greg, > >I could not locate them, where they are ? > Hi Hamdi, The location is: Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/smot2adj.html Glad to hear your hand is getting better. Regards, Michael X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 19:47:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:14:54 -0700 X-Sender: hargraves@home.inetnow.com Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:42:33 -0500 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: hargraves Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet Motor / Jeffrey Hinman Resent-Message-ID: <"B7Awr3.0.fX4.4uShp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3950 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Jeffrey Hinman I am new to the list. Thus, I did not see the patent information that you sent over the net However, I would like to see it. & My question is to you is - - - was the Pettent that you made refference to US Petent 4,451,431 In my oppinion this is the dirrection that we should all be going. My modle is only parcially complete. but, very simple, base, and easy to understand. Randy Hargraves Yukon Okla. At 04:27 PM 6/16/97 -0700, Jeffrey Hinman wrote: >Did anyone look at the patent information that I passed along from a >previous note about permanent magnet motors and a patent similar to the >SMOT? > >Would anyone like me to send an email copy of the patent text through >this distribution list? > YES, YES, YES and or directly to me, I have much E_mail Thus, please Incorporate My name in the Subject. Randy Hargraves Yukon Okla. hargraves@inetnow.com Jeff do the names Howard Johnson or Troy Reed Mean any thing to you? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 19:51:39 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 17:37:39 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" Subject: Corso and the Day After Roswell Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 11:04:30 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"BMQlY2.0.la7.FLShp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3948 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All! Nackles wrote: technology - gyrotrons, quadrupoles, reactors, etc - the technology was always "Russian in origin". Sounds Russian. And the technology was one the Russians were heavily involved in at the time. And sources are always purified when passed on to those who don't have a need to know as far as detection means. But we could never get any documentation (several of us read scientific Russian, so we wanted more original material). In the light of the Corso claims, I find it interesting that all the key technologies we were given were always claimed to be "Russian", but never with any documentation. And the idea of some group in the govt wanting a reverse engineering code...FWIW. .... This particular operation sounds like a typical retrieval of Russian scientific documentation in translation. Of course, on the other hand, my gut feeling is that what Corso describes in his book is what happened, seen through the lens of Corso's memory, and maybe a little self-aggrandizement. [I should add that I have not read the book yet] Bob Shannon says: newer than anyone has yet suggested here. But there's a smorgasbord of UFO references -- Roswell, abductions, the autopsy film, cattle mutilations, MJ-12 -- so random and incoherent you can easily suspect they were tossed in by someone who didn't really k now the UFO literature, to give a manufactured story credibility. Well, of course, there's so many UFO rumors out there that the truth would HAVE to correspond to some of them. But again, I haven't read the book. Maybe it really isn't believable. . I would like to take the implications a little further. The most important thing in the book is the strong assertion that the governemt was convinced they would have to fight a war with the Greys. As everyone knows, there has always been an underground of wild speculation in the UFO community, concerned with overarching conspiracy theories, underground bases, and ancient civilizations. IF Corso's book is true, it provides a rationale for the construction of extremely large underground cities with all t he amenities as described by some "leaks". If the military believed that they would some day fight a war with the Greys, they could not do otherwise. Since the government certainly would not trust the private corporations it passed on data or "data empha sis" to do all the research, it would certainly have to have an elaborate R&D apparatus. This would necessarily be underground. Several people have reported on massive construction campaigns at area 51 in the early fifties-- when the GIs would have been figuring out their paranoid take on the "ET menace". By my reckoning, the area 51 is now a technological backwater. You like to think the transistor is all these boys have been up to these many years since Roswell, you've got another think coming. That's just the spillover. There are a number of tales of Vietnam era soldiers who witnessed advanced technology like force fields being used in battle conditions. The presence of a technological fountain of riches from the saucer crash(es) and the necessity for security over sourc es would create an elite technocratic organization whose knowledge of technology would have to be permanently kept secret. The presence of huge underground testing labs in areas like Antelope Valley, Ca. is reported by MANY observers. One of my favorites among unprovable UFO lore is the story related by Bill (I think) about the underground facility in southern Ca. where s cientists in clean room conditions set up laser beams and then accelerate them to a velocity faster than light to communicate with several ET civilizations, whose locations were marked on a transparent map! Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 15:31:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:28:36 -0700 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:10:44 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Another face Resent-Message-ID: <"wqXkP3.0.W41.-RQhp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8619 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, According the face recognition campaign on remote locations take a look to our very SMOT face at http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/smot2adj.html, and make the adjustments quick! When the rollaway is achieved the magnetic face will smile! Regards, Hamdi Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 19:54:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 17:31:19 -0700 From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:38:24 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: RE : chemo-astro-connection References: <199706211257.OAA24068@imaginet.fr> <33ABFDA6.6B22@keelynet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"Qrx6a3.0.ht6.KFShp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8624 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I am familiar with several individuals who use water to capture the influences of stars and planets. SMOT researchers should expose water now around the time of the full moon to moon light (at least 5 liters) and create 'moon water' . Also and more import ant expose the magnets to full moon light to create a lunar charge. Place a glass bowl full of moon water next to the device/setup hoped to be working, and then place a copper or silver or gold sheet in the moon water with a wire of silver or copper runni ng to the experiment and attached to the base. Silver would work best although copper would be adequate. This should stablize the conditions over the next month. Fill the bowl with full moon water as it evaporates. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 15:32:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:08:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Right is Right? Rotary smot'rs Resent-Message-ID: <"82p0F1.0.uP4.JSQhp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3947 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi, Recently noted that a few home pages and individual ideas trying to 'help' on future designs of the RMOD have some diagrams going 'left' counter-clock-wise and some 'right' or clockwise?!! Wouldn't WE all HELP ourselves and confussion in future correspondence if we 'settled' on a constant diagram display (or maybe its just my backward think split brain here).. --------------- I like to suggest All smot diagrams (shoot the ball) bottom to TOP. ramps Left to RIGHT (exiting) or RMODS be shown/drawn in a CLOCK-WISE rotating motion. Thoughts.. seems trival I know, but right is right? se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 19:58:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:57:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: ad368@lafn.org (Jim Day) (by way of "Frederick J. Sparber" ) Subject: Wilkins device Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 00:35:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"7T3kd.0.4p1.gOUhp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8628 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Gnorts, Could the first SMOT have been invented in 1648 by the Bishop of Chester? If so, it would in no way detract from Greg Watson's brilliant accomplishment. Don't see why not. The clergy are just as likely to be playing with their magnets, ramps, and balls as "lay people." See Professor Hibbert's Perpetual Motion web page at http://www.chem.unsw.edu.au/staff/hibbert/perpetual/ Jim Day (ad368@lafn.org) Regards, Frederick X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 19:51:39 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 17:43:54 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" , Subject: Re: Latching molecule; Perovskite Crystals Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 17:45:21 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"kHzC93.0.7a.6RShp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3949 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Bob and all! didn't realize the "ferro" memories you were talking about were ferroelectric...confusing terminology! > > "The ferroelectric effect is the ability of a material to > retain an electric polarization in the absence of an applied > electric field. This stable polarization results form the > alignment of internal dipoles within the Perovskite crystal > units in the ferroelectric material. Application of an > electric field that exceeds the coercive field of the > material will cause this alignment, while reversal of the > field reverse the alignment of these internal dipoles. I have looked at perovskite variable capacitors (BaTi03 barrier caps) for use in my variable-capacitance parametric designs. There's one question I couldn't find the answer to though-- When the electric field strength is increased and the perovskite flips into the new orientation, what happens to the net dielectric constant? If the permittivity goes through a wide variation at the point of flipping then its not too hard to imagine a voltage-driven parametric amplifier, where voltage pulses drastically change the C of such a crystal, causing a parametric current to flow in a resonant output circuit. I have some articles about d ielectric amplifiers (analogous to magnetic amplifiers) that were developed in the 50's but were passed over because losses were too high and materials varied too much with temperature. > > . The nonvolatile > storage element in FRAM memories is a capacitor constructed > from two metal electrodes and a ferroelectric thin film > inserted between the transistor and metallization layers of > a CMOS process. I also looked at variable reactance devices patented by the Japanese that are based on a MOS capacitor, but they were active and would take too much power. I have looked at both ferroelectric and ferromagnetic latching mechanisms and conclude that magnetic ones are easier to control. Square-loop ferrites are lossy but not too bad at low frequencies. The parametric variable inductor on JLN's website (varind 4) shows a way to go here, substituting a square-loop ferrite for the "normal" ferrite. I don't believe it is necessary for the magnetic material to be latching if it has a nonlinear BH curve at the operating field strength of the "driver". What I really need is an efficient magnetoelectric material, one whose reactive characteristics vary with an applied magnetic field. As far as I know such materials are inefficient, rare and experimental. I have suggested that a magnetically-controlled electrolytic capacitor is possible, in reference to the Hendershot device. Such a material would not absorb energy from the magnetic field to vary the capacitance, allowing for possible overunity if the inductor is part of a tank circuit. Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 19:32:17 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:00:24 -0700 From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Latching molecule; Perovskite Crystals Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 21:26:55 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net References: <199706230044.RAA21379@mail1.halcyon.com> Lines: 69 Resent-Message-ID: <"tVv21.0.Qe.sYThp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3951 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >didn't realize the "ferro" memories you were talking about were >ferroelectric...confusing terminology! I believe my exact words in the first thread (that I deleted by accident) where "they operate in PRINCIPLE, but not in PRACTICE" in regard to the "ferro" meaning in these contexts. >parametric amplifier, where voltage pulses drastically change the C of such >a crystal Have you ever looked at the Pokels Effect (sp?), and BGO crystals? These show up in the measurement of voltage/currents with non-contact methods. Other similar effects are Faraday, Kerr, and Brag. Also look through of The Feyman Lecture On Physics, I think Volume-II. I've always been fascinated by the Kerr Effect for some reason. In theory you can take some fiber-optic cable, which by nature is insulated since it is made of glass or plastic. Wrap it around your high voltage conductor and measure the voltage with co mplete isolation even if your measuring mega-volts. >I have looked at both ferroelectric and ferromagnetic latching mechanisms >and conclude that magnetic ones are easier to control. Square-loop >ferrites are lossy but not too bad at low frequencies. The April 1997 issue of NASA Tech Briefs has some thing you might want to look at. "Magnetic-Bubble Annihilator [no not that kind of Magnetic-Bubble] for Use in VBL Memories: Enlarged loop increases tolerance to misalignment of the magnetic bubble." NPO -19716 VBL = Vertical-Bloch-Line. A new class of high-density magnetic-storage device. The Bubble Memories of the 1990's, tho maybe you would want to look in to the ones from the 1970's. I've still got the Intel Data sheets and application notes for them arou nd here some place. >What I really need is an efficient magnetoelectric material, one whose >reactive characteristics vary with an applied magnetic >field. Look at the effects I listed above. >As far as I know such materials are inefficient, rare and >experimental. You can buy voltermeters and current meters based on these effects, so there are real applications, off the shelf. Tho I'm unclear if this is exactly the same type of thing you are looking for. >possible, in reference to the Hendershot device. Such a material would not >absorb energy from the magnetic field to vary the capacitance, allowing for >possible overunity if the inductor is part of a tank circuit. You lost me there. You mean a normal inductor with the magnetic capacitor as a tank, or some other type of inductor with the magnetic capacitor? --- NOTE: I have a new e-mail address: bpaddock@csonline.net For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 22:42:26 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:41:37 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Latching molecule; Perovskite Crystals Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:43:16 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"b3eL13.0.wg4.GoWhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3954 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Tim and all, > > What happens to the magnetic properties of ferrites when strong > electric field are placed across them ? I've had a hard time finding that out. I've looked more at the opposite stiuation, the electrical properties of a ferrite when a magnetic field is applied. Intuitively it seems likely that a higher magnitude effect would arise with magnetic field bei ng the cause and electric the effect. There should be some effect, as ferrites are dielectrics--a typical ferrite can have a K near that of BaTiO3. They are not used as capacitors because the Q is low. There is a description of an effect in Burkes "Handbook Of Magnetic Phenomena" of what he called the Ferroelectromagnetic effect, showing a ferrite between the plates of a capacitor. (I may have the name wrong) The K changed as a magnetic field was a pplied. Unfotunately, he gave no references and I have not seen the effect listed anywhere else. Anybody heard of this? I suspect the effect was very low magnitude or we would have seen more about it. I would like to see someone try the experiment of wrapping an electrolytic cap in a coil and measuring the C while a magnetic field was applied. It seems possible that there will be some effect, since the ions in the electrolyte are subject to the mag netic field when moving under electric influence. The coil would tend to pin them to the walls. whether this would change the reactance or just the resistance of the cap is the question, and by how much? Fred X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 23:04:28 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:03:55 -0700 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:03:46 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Microwave plasmoids again (FWD) (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"YIWS31.0.Ha5.87Xhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3955 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com A message forwarded by Rick Monteverde... .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page Reply-To: USA-TESLA@list.usa.net Sender: USA Tesla List From: James P Moore To: Multiple recipients of list USA-TESLA Subject: Kitchen Cooked Ball Lightning X-Sender: jmoore@condor.bcm.tmc.edu X-To: USA-TESLA@list.usa.net Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 17:33:17 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 At 03:59 AM 6/12/97 GMT, you wrote: >On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:09:42 -0500, James P Moore >, you wrote: > >[snip] > >>Very interesting.... i wonder if Ralph was pullin our legs? > >Don't know just, I couldn't recreate his experiment. > >>If not, then >>we need more info on the type of his microwave, power rating, and if it >>had a rotating platform. Did your oven rotate? >NO, my oven is quit stationary on the kitchen counter as it ran;) >Yes, mine has a rotating platter in it. I however, placed the candle >and match very near the center of the platter. > > > jim >>I havn't tried it yet, but >>after your report is in stark conflict with Ralphs.... tonight is the night, >>for my trial run. My oven rotates, if this makes any difference. We'll see >>what mine does. later........... Well Jim I produced some amazing Simulated Ball Lightning last night! The Ralph protocol WORKS, well! I tried a small one inch tall candle, after removing the metal wick retainer at the bottom, and placed it in a small ceramic bowl, light it and place the MW on high. Watched for almost a minute, and nothing happens, as you reported. I was discouraged! My MW also has a rotating carousel, and so I removed that and tried again, and nothing! So... I placed a round wooden toothpick in a makeshift plastic holder, light it and cranked the MW on high, after watching for 10-15 seconds, things began to happen! First a little sputtering from the previously burn wood charcoal-flame interface zone.... then some brilliant white flashes from the charcoal, then ERUPTION..... BBBOOOOZZZUUUMMMM.... a purple sphere popped out of the white flash, and rose to the roof, and rolled around briefly, before being sucked toward the intake for the ventilation fan! This was stationary with no rotation, then the purple buzzzzing spheres began to erupt with more intensity and frequency, as the toothpick burned down. I was too involved in watching these plasmoid fire balls roll around the oven, to notice that the small wooden stick had burned into the plastic holder, and when that happened WOW, talk about plasma balls........... I thought that the oven might not withstand such a quantity of frolicking ionized plasma, pervading the domain, so I shut it off, and extinguished the weakly burning plastic. This was so exciting that I had to try variations in an attempt to understand wh at was happening, and why the candle did not work, but the wood did. Also the buzzzzing noise seemed to be coming from the Ionized Plasmoids, and not the transformer, but I could be wrong. After thinking a bit and deciding that carbon must have a key role to play in this phenomenon, I decided to take the small candle and poke a toothpick into the wax so that the wick and the wooden pick, were making contact. When I tried this, on a rotated plate, I got nicely space and somewhat smaller Plasmoids, and since the wax kept the wood going longer, I watched these things crawl all over the inside of the oven, and some even went across the ceiling and down the wall, before puffing out! This was great fun, but my mind was still cooking, so......... I kept thinking sooty smoke from the plastic was a good source but too toxic, wood which left a good matrix of carbon, was also a good fuel for the plasmoids, now what else could be used......? I set down for a while popped a top, and let the MW, cool down a bit, because when I felt the walls inside, they were very warm. After downing half my brew... I went for the old empty bag of charcoal briquettes that I had not thrown away after last weekends barbecued chicken. After shaking it a bit I inverted it over a large plate and obtained a nice quantity of simi- powdered carbon to play with, working on the hypothesis that vaporized carbon, was an underlying factor in obtaining good ionized Plasmoids. Tried placing the powdered carbon an a rotated and non-rotated plate, and nothing. Then I remembered what Ed had said about steel wool doing something in the MW. So I place a small dab of SW on the rotating plate fired up the HF-RF and the SW, began to sparkle a bit as it slowly burned, but no Synthetic Ball Lightning. You can guess what the next logical thing to do was............ FINISH THE BEER, right? NO..... I sprinkles the charcoal powder sparsely about on another dab of steel wool, with a small pile in the center, and fired up the MW on high again, in rotating mode. Well..... the wool began to burn, then I saw little white sparks popping out from various regions of the wool, and I assumed that these were specks of carbon that were ignited, by the combusting steel wool. Soon.... some Plasmoids began to materialize and buzz about the oven, as with the wood, but they became more vigorous and persisted longer before fading from existence, after the carbonized steel had burned for a while, the reaction continued to intensify, one of the Plasmoids must have lasted for 4-5sec, and was the size of not a golf ball... but an orange, and was very beautiful. This particular Plasmoid went to the top of the oven as usual after erupting, then crawled down the wall, and went back to the top and found a place near the front of the oven, by the door about 4 inches from my dumb-founded wide open eyes, then proceeded to remain stationary, and was quite spherical! It persisted for so long, that I was afraid that since it was remaining in one spot, that it would damage the MW, so I shut the experiment down! WOWWWW, what a site that one was!!! After examining the inside of the oven for damage from this most beautiful Ball Of Plasma, I did find a tiny spot that corresponded to it's favorite spot, and although most of the spot wiped off, there did appear to be the beginning of an electrically etc hed surface erosion in the porcelain coating or what ever it is on the inside of the oven. It looked almost like a tiny arc welded spot. Well after last night fun, I BELIEVE EVERY WORD THAT RALPH RELATED to the list!!! I do believe that vaporized or ionized carbon is a key factor in successfully creating these interesting Plasmoids, that may have a LOT in common with natural Ball Lightning? Tesla was rumored to use powder carbon, in his creation of Laboratory Ball Light ning. However, to my knowledge, nobody has ever reproduced his technique, in doing this. Now thanks to modern MW oven technology, maybe scientists can easily create and study these interesting Plasma phenomena, under controlled conditions, to find out more about the mystery of Ball Lightning, and other related plasma phenomena? This rarely o bserved phenomenon, is poorly documented, and even more poorly understood! Based on what little that I have observed last night.... I would bet that if a person could find a way to place a High Voltage carbon arc, inside a microwave chamber that some really awesome Laboratory Ball Lightning could be produced! By vaporization of carbon, by the HV arc, while in the electric field of a M W cavity! There also may be different MW frequencies that alter or enhance the properties of these interesting Plasmoid Phenomena? I hope that someone will want to study this in a truly scientific way, if it hasn't been done previously, and to my knowledge, it hasn 't. IMO, there might be some useful information that might be obtained by a detailed scientific study of this interesting phenomenon! Ralph... you speak the TRUTH!!! ;) JPM X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 23:10:19 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:09:48 -0700 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:09:41 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Ball lightning---More information (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"j4fj-.0.2r5.fCXhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3956 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Another microwave oven replication below. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 21:34:30 -0400 (EDT) From: THREESPOT@aol.com To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: Ball lightning---More information Bill: I have a rather "firework" successful recipe for getting the plasmoinds in the Microwaves... I have before me a rather standard glass. (Can be bought at the local grocery store in the U.S.) 14 CM high, 7 cm diameter onthe top, 6 cm diameter on the bottom, 3 mm wall thickness. (Probably a "soft" glass.) Placed inside of the glass is an Old Harbour Candle, Chicago, IL 60621, Citronella type. 4cm high, 3.5 cm diam. I have melted the Citronella candle, and fished out the wick (kept it from sinking). I then take 4 diamond brand (Minnepolis MN) matches wood, 2mm by 2mm by 4.5 cm long, light them and allow them to burn 1/2 way. I then distribute them in a 2cm by 2cm square pattern, with the carbonized tip pointing straight up, around the centrally located wick of the melted/resolidified citronella which is in the 14cm tall glass. I then light the wick and the matches. Although I have indication to show that if JUST THE WICK is lighted, after a couple of plasmoids are formed the matches also ignite. The important thing about this is that forming on the carbon of the matches are bright white arc discharges which seem to be the nucleus for the plasma discharges. This set up will give you a spectacular display for about a minute, but then the local heating in the glass tends to remelt the wax, and the matches start falling over, and the system peters out. None the less, the conclusion I have reached is that a sharpened carbonized point is a good nucleus for the discharges, although the "active" media in the discharges still may be coming from the combustion of the flame itself. (Primarily CO2 and H2O--- I think the ionization state of same is IMPORTANT!) Good luck fellow experimentors. Again, go to your local Salvation Army store or Goodwill, and 1500 watt microwaves are 10-30$. (Other elements here cost literally $1, $2, and $3 each.) Happy buzz zap! X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 03:27:28 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:25:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:26:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, gwatson@microtronics.com.au Subject: FUmBLE FINGers...(or Where's the HOLE!!???) Resent-Message-ID: <"aJdW3.0.LW4.pyahp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3957 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com 2 Bolts & 2 Nuts & SCREW it! Hi ALL, Jed & I :) appear to have Fumble Fingers when working on the SMOTx, this finger Failure (on my part) has I believe come up with a way for EVERYONE to enjoy roll-away. (see attached gif) We (smoters) all have aluminum 12mm channel and Balls -eh? well, I'm going to suggest we makeit Harder "easier" by added just Two count'em (2) Nerll'd Bolts (thumb-bolts) or here in the US, they are what holds up our ceiling 'globes' or Light Fixtures to the ceiling. 8x36 (roughly) bolts that are EASY to Get Finger Failing Grips ON.. (Oh, we'll need Two(2) NUTS to fit those bolts too:) Again the attached gif may be better then this description.. but, I'm stuck in mostly ascii e-mail and just learned i can even send an attachment --cool-- :) (see attached) excuse my Swedish English. :) ----------------------------------- Fumble-Fingers Smot Clamper Answer! 1,2,3 (assumes you have smot1 and magnets (ANY SIZE)) THIS **WILL** WORK -RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX(*)- (work'd for me :) #1 CUT two more 12mm Aluminum channels to MATCH what ever length you have! Now you should have at least three (3) right! CUT the Watson Bending groove in about the same place.. (no x mm needed, just close!) #2 In your Three (3) channels Drill a hole in the BASE (were the BALL would start off) somewhere centered :) __hole__/\__________________________ Accuracy (though pretty:) is not required! #3 On the TWO(2) New channels ADD/drill a Side Hole (preferable in the middle) larger than your Bolt but SMALLER than your NUT(s).. I told you you- no accuracy required!!------------------------------------------- | ^ (hole) | --*-/ \------------------------------------ *=#2 hole cut One LEFT side,one RIGHT, BUT a through Drill will make them REVERSIABLE! -------------------------- WHOA! Hey, we're DONE!!!! THAT's IT -Thats' all -- Let's build a SMOT! :) -------------------------- The above bolt/nut set-up works like a 'clamp' if you pull out on the bolt while your tighten/loosing it, or in hard threaded cases hold the NUT while you tighten/loosen the T-Bolt, (thumb bolt). -------------------------- SCREW 'EM FIRMLY to a Board (preferable flat, though NOT required!:) with ALL of their BASE(s) LINED UP like: _|_|_|_ 1,2,3 about (doesn't matter) anywhere from 1/2" (10mm) to an Inch & 1/2" (40-50mm) though closer *is* a bit better. the Center ONE i s your Greg Watson Smot channel -ok. (though again, it doesn't matter!:) -------------------------- BEND (squeeze* - no matter how FIRMLY you tighten'd the screw, I'll BET it will move:), the *OUTER TWO CHANNELS into the watson's 'V' like: /|\ so. OR YOU CAN LEAVE THEM PARALLEL IF YOU WANT TO TRY THE STACKED ARRAY.. COOL:) on this one (the stack array) try for about 1/2" or so seperation.. though just add more mags if you need to. -------------------------- Add a 'thumb-bolt', 'wing-bolt', or whatever you call a bolt you can just turn with your FINGERS!, through the outerside hole and ADD the NUT inside the channel! WE NOW HAVE A CLAMP (simple KISS, But Effective!), repeat other side. -------------------------- Slap some magnets (4-5), FACE N-S per Greg -duh, on your Steel Bar AND CLAMP 'EM in with the knerled THUMB-NUT! loosen to adjust backward-forward or IF your STEEL Backing Bar is too FAT (mine was) just CLAMP THE BAR, and add magnets to its surface. (you s hould see by now, where were going, and if you want to use a LARGER U channel for LARGER MAGNETS or Steel BARS feel free to make any ADJUSTMENTs you need. --------------------------- WAIT a minute, their ALL FLAT on the Board..(oh, the straight roll-a-way people start/stop here..smot 2=(OK PRY/BEND'em UP) equally I STARTED @ 10mm LIFT **WORKED GREAT** in a 'V' & Stacked Array with about 3/4 inch initially between the ramps... JUST LIFT *ALL THREE EQUALLY* till you get a roll-a-way AND Adjust the magnets with the FF/thumb turny things. If had 60-200 FIRM ADJUSTMENTS and still no (coathanger) breakage!.. But, I also have 16 (4") spare channels from my 1st 4 ramp loop. Rem: FFsmot, SCREW'em (firmly), BEND'em (any whichway), LIFT'em.. T-thumb ADJUST/PUSH/PULL/BEND/LIFT as needed:) ENJOY!! Oh yea, report to Greg :) se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX ps this is just for a smot roll-a-way, the whole board would have to be countersunk into another surface for LOOP-CLOSING. I have the KISS/BITE+ Clamps for that too, but that's another e-mail.. Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF; name="ffsmot.gif" Content-ID: Content-Description: Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\FFSMOT.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 13:17:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:17:07 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:16:30 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: About RMOD V3.0 Resent-Message-ID: <"BUL3h2.0.4C5.2djhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3960 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, You will find in my web server, my new approach of the RMOD V3.0 device at : http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/rmodmk3.htm The RMOD V3.0 uses conversion of the magnetic energy of a magnet to kinetic energy with the gravitational field for regauging. The regauging effect is possible with this device and we should be able to build an open system for ZPE energy like a water whee l...... The RMOD V3.0 device is based on the work on basic magnetism in 1269 of Pierre de Maricourt, commonly called Petrus Peregrinus. "He owes his surname to the village of Maricourt, in Picardy, and the appellation Peregrinus, or Pilgrim, to his having visited the Holy Land as member of one the crusading expeditions of the time. ...In the course of his work over the new motor, Peregrinus was gradually led to consider the more fascinating problem of perpetual motion itself with the result that he showed, at least diagrammatically, and to his own evident satisfaction, how a wheel m ight be driven round forever by the power of magnetic attraction." Ref doc. : " The letter of Petrus Peregrinus ' ON THE MAGNET, AD.D. 1269 ', translated by Brother Arnold, M.Sc. Principal of La Salle Institute, Troy with Introductory notice by Brother Potamian, D.Sc, professor of Physics in Manhattan College, New York " Overunity yours Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 10:27:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:24:06 -0700 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:21:27 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corso and the Day After Roswell References: <199706222219.PAA18109@mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"Fv14L.0.k54.r4hhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3959 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > Bob Shannon says: > newer than anyone has yet suggested here. But there's a smorgasbord > of UFO references -- Roswell, abductions, the autopsy film, cattle > mutilations, MJ-12 -- so random and incoherent you can easily suspect > they were tossed in by someone who didn't really know the UFO > literature, to give a manufactured story credibility. > > Well, of course, there's so many UFO rumors out there that the truth would > HAVE to correspond to some of them. But again, I haven't read the book. > Maybe it really isn't believable. Sorry, Fred, but these are not my words. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 21:02:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 21:00:15 -0700 From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fun with microwave ovens Date: 23 Jun 1997 21:13:23 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"koR0X3.0.hZ4.APqhp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3963 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com It is easy to achieve temperatures over 1,000 degrees C where some usually inocuous materials release very toxic fumes. I would suggest an extention cable and having your fun in the garden, standing upwind, as a minimum precaution. Microwaving can certainly be more fun than cooking. My unwanted software demo CDs go that way; very pretty! ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 19:36:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:35:47 -0700 X-Sender: rmuha@mail Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:36:32 -0400 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: ralph muha Subject: Re: Corso and the Day After Roswell Resent-Message-ID: <"8aBrO2.0.Kk2.y9php"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3962 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Of course, on the other hand, my gut feeling is that what Corso describes >in his book is what happened, seen through the lens of Corso's memory, and >maybe a little self-aggrandizement. >[I should add that I have not read the book yet] You should read it. There is very little self-aggrandizement. Corso speaks highly of his superiors (eg, his boss, General Trudeau, with whom he served in Korea) and disparagingly of politicians and the CIA/KGB (which he portrays as a single inter-penetr ated entity). He claims that in 1961, he was given custody of a file cabinet that contained artifacts recovered from the Roswell crash, with the mission to disseminate these artifacts into the defense R&D community. These artifacts included image intensifiers, optical fibers, hand held laser cutting beams, some kind of VLSI 'chips' and a 'magic fabric' which was used both as a skin for the ship and as suits for its occupants. Most of the hard wreckage (the ship itself) went to the airforce. The alien bodies were sent to Walter Reed Army hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital for autopsy. He also claims to have seen an alien body, while it was in temporary storage at an army base at which he was stationed in '47. He states that the hidden agenda of the cold war was arming ourselves against the possibility of an alien invasion and that Reagan's 'Star Wars' speech *really was* about star wars... (although he also says that there was a lot of distrust--we couldn't b e sure if the Russians had made their own deal with the aliens) He also claims that we 'shot down' our first UFO over Ramstein AFB in Germany in 1974... r X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 19:29:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:28:52 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:22:47 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Mk2 Beta 2 details Resent-Message-ID: <"jES-22.0.Wh1.U3php"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3961 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have updated my site with further improvements to the SMOT Mk2 design. I can now get fairly easy rollaways using the config on the site. Raising the magnets helps quite a lot in getting good rollaways, yet has very little detrimental effect on up the ramp performance. With good side to side balancing, the magnets arrays can be raised 1-3mm above the ball centres, improving up the ramp ope ration AND helping to improve rollaways. I know it sounds crazy, but this seems to be another example of how Ou systems should have reversed operational characteristics. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 21:45:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 21:44:36 -0700 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 21:43:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: About RMOD V3.0 Resent-Message-ID: <"kXIqo.0.EL.n2rhp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8656 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Jean-Louis How does the unit work or operate for rotation? As per your drawing the magnet is stationary in the center. What is the purpose of the ball? Does it rolls around? Regards, Michael At 04:16 PM 6/23/97 -0400, you wrote: >Hi All, > >You will find in my web server, my new approach of the RMOD V3.0 device at : > > http://members.aol.com/overunity3/html/rmodmk3.htm > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 23:25:39 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:25:18 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Latching molecule; Perovskite Crystals Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:23:51 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"XX6wX.0.DX7.CXshp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3964 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > Do you know where I can get the book by Burke? Is it still in print? > Thanks, Butch LaFonte Hi, Butch, unfortunately it is out of print. Try putting in a request at http://www.amazon.com Fred > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 08:28:34 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:28:02 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:54:06 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: freenrg-L@eskimo.com Subject: Kromrey converter Resent-Message-ID: <"bHh5C3.0.U76.1U-hp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3965 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi all. I'm testing the G-Field since one year, I have 3 prototypes built, and I can't place it work at overunity. In all cases, efficiency is always below 60%. (RMS measurement). Please, If anyboby has one built and work, or don't work, please report me by this via. My page at: http://www.ctv.es/USERS/vramos/home.htm Vicente. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 06:52:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 06:50:05 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:49:26 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re : Re: About RMOD V3.0 Resent-Message-ID: <"BXdpe2.0.Qb1.A2zhp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8662 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On 24/06/1997 14:56:32 , Michael Randall wrote : << Hi Jean-Louis How does the unit work or operate for rotation? As per your drawing the magnet is stationary in the center. What is the purpose of the ball? Does it rolls around? Regards, Michael >> Hi Michael, This only matter for thinking today, this not the final design of this device , The magnet is stationary and fixed in center, the ball is used for regauging the system with gravity as the ball in the linear ramp in the SMOT. I think that it seems more simple to adjust separately the magnetic effect Vs the gravity drop, this adjustment can be done only by modifying the angle of phase ( angle of the magnet support ). The average position of ball is at the bottom of the wheel as see in my gif animation. In the original design of Peregrinus, the ball is Outside the cogs wheel and the teeth push the ball. I think that, in the original Peregrinus device use magnetic remanence of the iron as a pump for magnetic energy, he said : "let the north pole be then turned toward the teeth or cogs of the wheel somewhat slantingly so that the virtue of stone may not fl ow diametrrically into the iron teeth, but at a certain angle; consequently when one of the teeth comes near the north pole and owing to the impetus of the wheel passes it, it then approaches the south pole from which it is rather driven away than attract ed, as is evident from the law given in a precedent chapter. Therefore such a tooth would be constantly attracted and constantly repelled...." I think that Peregrinus use the temporary magnetic polarisation of the iron for generating a magnetic repulsion force. We find the same principle in the Adams motor/generator. The core of the coil change its polarity when it pass through the center of the magnet. ( see the Nexus document about the Adams motor ). In the case of the Adams motor/generator the regauging is done by a short electromagnetic pulse when the rotating magnets leave the coils. The main problem is all these kinds machines is the timin g adjustements between the pumping phase and the regauging phase. If we want to pump the ZPE energy ( or S-Flow) , we need to build a open system for a continuous flow of this energy and I think that this can be done with a short time frame's difference b etween two kind of energy ( magnetic/gravitational ). Nice to speak with you soon, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 11:07:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:06:32 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:09:45 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: * * * ANNOUNCEMENT * * * Resent-Message-ID: <"2svfF1.0.TQ4.do0ip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3966 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com * * * * * * * ANNOUNCEMENT * * * * * * * On Sunday Evening, June 29, 1997, the A & E NETWORK will present a 2-hour SPECIAL entitled "Conspiracies." I have been told that the SPECIAL will consist of eight different Segments. I have also been informed that JOSEPH NEWMAN will be featured as the 7th Segment. The broadcast time for the SPECIAL is indicated as 7pm for the Central Time Zone. Please consult your local TV listings for the actual broadcast time in your area. * * * * * * * ANNOUNCEMENT * * * * * * * Sincerely, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space." --- MICHAEL FARADAY X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 14:25:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:19:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "John Steck" Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:11:03 -0500 References: <970621034110_-1644035726@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re : JLN - RMOD Resent-Message-ID: <"znCiv3.0.CB1.Gd3ip"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8666 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Jun 21, 2:35am, JNaudin509@aol.com wrote: > In the RMOD the gravity as no effect in the regauging process..... > I have tried to use kinetic energy and the non-linearity of the ball's path > for breaking the magnetic attraction. I have similar sketches from when this xMOD thing first fired up. Your v2.0 layout caught my attention because it is almost the exact approach I had planned to take. To date, I have only been an observer due to time and resource restrictions. Glad to s ee someone else thinking along the same lines. > During my first series of tests the RMOD, once launched, rotates and STOPS > after a few time, the regauging effect is not sufficient to maintain the > rotation. It seems that the main problem comes from the material used for the > rotating balls. As far as I am concerned, I think that I need to find the appropriated > material or alloy which have a low magnetic saturation. It is my impression that just like closed loop SMOT, a successful RMOD would also require multiple "ramps" to function properly. My original design (untested and highly theoretical) calls for 3 "ramp" fields with four? spheres. The idea is to place the spheres processionally out of phase from the "j" ramps such that the "drop off" from one is assisted by both, the "climb" of the other two ramps and the tangential field drop off from the circular path of the rotor. The basis of this configuration is an attempt to eliminate inertia as a functional requirement. I like the idea of using a low saturation material. I had been considering some degaussing setup between the ramps to counter-act the artifact build up. Your approach may be more efficient by limiting the potential build up from the very beginning. Another departure in my design is the planned use of round bar magnets. The magnet array on each side would be setup with same size holes in a non-conductive material and using hot melt to hold the magnets in place. Instead of multiple magnets, the same length magnet would be used throughout by varying depth of the installation. For some reason I have a feeling the round shape will also help with the escape from the field by giving a more definable and centralized location of force. It seems to me that the corners on the square magnets at the exit complicate the drop off by over extending the field in the intended direction of escape. This is only a hypothesis as I have only seen Q-field analysis from the plan vi ew, not the profile. I think a mid-"track" profile evaluation would be very revealing. > I am working today on magnetic simulation with QuickField, if you are > interested, I can send you some designs. I am studying most particularly a > special design with a thin shell around the ball made with a high > permeability alloy like supermalloy. The main goal of this study is to find > the good setup which can create a magnetic shield just before the higher flux > density area ( drop zone ) but without reducing significantly the magnetic to > kinetic energy conversion during the first part (2/3) of the magnetic ramps. I am be willing to take a look or read about whatever you wish to share, but I am unable to make any reliable commitments right now. At best, my involvement would have to be passive as I do not expect to be playing with my own RMOD designs for a while ye t. I have too many other projects in process. Please keep up the good work! I look forward to hearing of your progress. -- Quote of the Day: Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 11:34:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:30:33 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: vramos@ctv.es CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Kromrey converter References: <33AFC36E.51D2@ctv.es> Resent-Message-ID: <"pTULd2.0.OD3.WC1ip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3967 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga wrote: > > Hi all. > I'm testing the G-Field since one year, I have 3 prototypes built, and I > can't place it work at overunity. > > In all cases, efficiency is always below 60%. (RMS measurement). > > Please, If anyboby has one built and work, or don't work, please report > me by this via. > > My page at: > > http://www.ctv.es/USERS/vramos/home.htm > > Vicente. Greetings, you might wish to look at Jean-Louis Naudin's web site for more information (not showing over unity operation) at: http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ I also suggest that you look at John Bedini's web site, where some teat data used to support the claim of over unity operation is presented. I had several email exchanges with Mr. Bedini over these test results, but I was not fully satisfied with some of his responses to technical points. At one point, Mr. Bedini described the output of the device as being DC when the subject of AC power factors (phase angle between current and voltage) was mentioned. Jean-Louis has shown the significance of the phase angle between current and voltage in the G field devices. In some of his tests, failure to account for this AC power factor could be misinterpreted as evidence of over unity operation. To be completely fair to Mr. Bedini, he has expressed some concern over Jean-Louis's use of a magnetic material for the shaft in his version of Bedini's device. I have personally experimented with versions of the Kromrey converter where pulses are applied to a rechargable battery. In this testing, I did find that more energy was avaialble from the battery than is normally delivered. But this 'extra' energy was n ot so large that it could not be explained by the conventional process of shock excitation of the batteries electrolyte. It is my opinion that these devices simply do not operate as some claim. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 17:17:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:15:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:15:16 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Time to freeze and ship? Resent-Message-ID: <"3-4cx2.0.Z23.XC6ip"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8668 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com >From Jed... ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb@eskimo.com www.eskimo.com/~billb EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 24 Jun 97 13:47:16 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: William Beaty [THIS MESSAGE BOUNCED BACK AFTER 1 DAY, 12 HOURS, WITH "AN UNDELIVERABLE MESSAGE" ERROR. I MAY HAVE POSTED IT TWICE TODAY, 6/24/97.] Perhaps it is now time for Greg Watson to freeze the SMOT design, build the demo kits people have ordered, and ship them out. No doubt the design will continue to evolve rapidly, almost day by day, as improvements and suggestions come in. However, there a re two good arguments for shipping now: 1. From Greg's messages I gather the present tapered array configuration works pretty well, for him, anyway. Chris and I cannot get it to say boo. 2. Chris and many others are struggling to replicate it without success. They feel a growing sense of frustration. I suppose Chris cannot replicate because we do not have a comprehensive description of the machine. We do not know the field strength of the magnets, which must be a critical parameter. There may be other critical parameters, like the exact size of the ba ll, or even its composition. A comprehensive map of the magnetic fields is probably needed. When you make a tiny change to the machine, the performance can change radically, so the parameters must be critical. Greg does not have the equipment to measure t hem all. Nobody knows which ones are critical, so we must examine them all. If we get some working SMOTs in hand, perhaps we can encourage top-notch laboratories to measure additional parameters with their high tech equipment in order to write a more comp lete set of specifications. That is how technology progresses. - Jed T: Vortex S: Seventh Miley Critique Rich Murray writes: I will take the space here to reiterate my after/before ratios in my first Miley Critique, calculated from his own data in Table 3 in his First Preprint, based on NAA analysis, given accuracy by him of +- 15 %: Isotope Atoms per Atoms per After/Before Ratio fresh beads reacted beads 29 Cu-63 3.57E+15 116.E+15 32.5 29 Cu-65 1.54E+15 49.7E+15 32.3 47 Ag-107 7.32E+15 76.1E+15 10.4 47 Ag-109 6.68E+15 61.4E+15 9.2 The remarkaby close agreement of these two pairs of values, which are for NAA analysis of different 10-bead samples, before and after, from runs using 1,000 beads each, indicates a simple multiplication of the initial number of atoms of the two elements, i.e., no isotopic shift effect, within the +- 15 % claimed NAA accuracy, hence, no evidence for transmutations. This is the same conclusion Miley reaches. The last column of the table shows no significant isotopic shift for Cu or Ag. Let's have a look at another NAA element, Zn: % of isotope Mass No. Fresh Reacted After/Before Natural After 64 1.42E+15 1.67E+16 11.8 50 39 66 7.82E+14 9.22E+15 11.8 28 22 67 1.14E+1 4 2.16E+15 18.9 4 5 68 5.08E+14 1.30E+16 25.6 18 31 70 1.64E+13 1.24E+15 75.6 1 3 Let's have a look at a non-NAA element, silicon: % of isotope Mass No. Fresh Reacted After/Before Natural After 28 8.14E+16 3.02E+17 3.7 99 94 29 <1E+15 2E+16 >20 <1 6 . . . Oh easy it is to knock down a strawman you yourself set up. Pick the right data, ignore the rest, and you can prove just about any damn thing. As shown on table 4a, there is nowhere near enough silver or copper contamination in the cathode, cell or cell components to account for these results. There is no way you can get copper or silver to appear spontaneously out of nowhere deep in a cathode. Therefore, the logical conclusion is is that this process just happened to produce copper and silver in their natural isotopic ratios, while it produced other elements in unnatural isotopic ratios. Since there is no known way you can produce any elements in any ratios under such mild conditions, this makes the mystery only a little more difficult to explain. - Jed X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 18:16:46 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:21:02 -0400 From: B25B@LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: B25B@LCIA.COM To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Scanning Resent-Message-ID: <"FbbOD3.0.S_2.u57ip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3968 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com `>Bob Paddock wrote> >A > cheap way to scan things is to fax them to >to yourself or from a real fax machine to your >computer fax. Bob, How do you get from your fax screen to your Email page to send it Email? Ron Brennen X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 14:13:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:12:32 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:07:32 -1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Microwave plasmoids again Resent-Message-ID: <"h3QIu3.0.s94.zcOip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3981 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Jerry - > ...and that reminded me of an article in an old > SciAm (1800's) about a proposal by Thomas > Edison to use electrified jets of salt water, shot > from the towers of forts to repel invading > Indians....shock em to insensibility, then go down > and clean up....weirder and weirder....seeya! Whaddaya get when you cross a Super Soaker(TM) with a cattle prod? ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 21:15:38 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:13:25 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:38:58 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Kit update Resent-Message-ID: <"WApRd.0.UB.Yh9ip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3969 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Just a short note. I have frozen the SMOT kits at Mk2 level. I expect the perspex bases to be delivered by late this week or early next week. I will then "hand tune" each ramp for its best operation. All ramps, magnets and bases will be labeled so as to allow assembly as I had them. I will be going to Perth next week for Mark's wings presentation. Everything should have arrived when I get back. Therefore, I expect to start shipping kits in about 2 weeks. Sorry for the delay, but I know you understand how important it is for everything to be correct. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 23:28:15 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:27:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: Magnetic Motor Resent-Message-ID: <"jmUbW3.0.zi6.OgBip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3970 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I'm working on a magnetic motor design that I came up with about eight months ago. As far as I know its original. If it works it's in the public domain. I'm about half way done building the first one. I put some graphics of it on my web page: http://www.compumedia.com/~skot/ Later I'll add a theory explaination. The short curved line is a saturating strip of metal ( just like Westley Gary's ). Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /***********************************************************/ /* Anything said by me on this list that I have originated */ /* is in the public domain. PS There's no money in energy. */ /* - At least not after everybody owns an energy device! - */ /****** *****************************************************/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 23:32:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:38:29 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: List Server Vortex cc: List Server Freenrg , gwatson@microtronics.com.au Subject: Re: SMOT Kit update Resent-Message-ID: <"KOMh2.0.mx6.mkBip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3971 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Greg Watson wrote: > Hi All, > Just a short note. > I have frozen the SMOT kits at Mk2 level. I expect the perspex bases to > be delivered by late this week or early next week. I will then "hand > tune" each ramp for its best operation. All ramps, magnets and bases > will be labeled so as to allow assembly as I had them. Greg, Did you get/see my "fumble fingers" ramp assymbly (with attch .gif).. Once it's 'screwed down' and set, you can literally drop it from the tabel and it probably will still work (roll-a-way). Throwing it against the wall however may be different, but it is VERY SOLID, especially if "hand tune"'d by you.. just open package a nd set Ball on ramp and off and rolling it goes! :) hard to link, but shows SMOT/Blue Hole very quickly. I think I can resend it if you missed it.?? (it "starts" 10mm no problem, before 'fine tuning') se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 04:20:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 04:15:16 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 04:15:10 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Microwave plasmoids again Resent-Message-ID: <"aZD_22.0.NI.3tFip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3972 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, William Beaty wrote: > From: James P Moore > After thinking a bit and deciding that carbon must have a key role to play > in this phenomenon, I decided to take the small candle and poke a toothpick > into the wax so that the wick and the wooden pick, were making contact. This one finally worked! An unmodified candle did nothing (few inches tall, on rotating oven platform). When I taped a previously-charred wooden match to the side of the candle with the tip very close to the flame, things started happening. Every time the carbon was rotated past a hot spot, it made messy white star-like sparking. Some orange flames lept from the burning candle, and occasionally one would fly upwards to the top of the oven and roll around for 1/2 second at most. These were orange puff s of fire, not the "purple spheres" mentioned above, so we might not be seeing the same thing. I suspect that a non-rotating oven may not work right for this. These ovens have metal stirrer-fans for breaking up hot spots. Most rotating-dish ovens do not. They instead rely on motion of the food to distribute the hot spots. But the hot spots seem necessary to initiate the messy sparking that leads to plasmoids. Now if I could only get the wandering flame-puffs to last for more than a fraction of a second, I could try the important experiment: turn off the oven and see if the "plasmoid" winks out instantly. Another possibility: while candle flames alone do nothing, electric arcs between fragments of aluminum foil seem to absorb microwaves and grow huge. Maybe it has something to do with corona versus flame, and an electric arc is full of free electrons, not just + and - heavy ions. Or, maybe it has to do with dopants, and aluminum ions and detrius during arcs absorb RF energy while a simple candle flame might not. Another untried suggestion: Support a glass or plastic dish inside the top of the oven cavity, so the plasmoids don't touch cold metal. Or, drill a hole through such a dish and stick a small grounded wire out the hole, to simulate the previous event whe re a plasmoid attached itself to a small spot in the ceiling where the enamel was chipped and metal probably exposed. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 05:30:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 05:30:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:29:46 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: Wes Crosiar CC: freenrg-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini motors References: <199706241617.JAA11480@claim.goldrush.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"-pww73.0.pR2.GzGip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3973 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wes Crosiar wrote: > > On your Bedini motors measure the resistance of the motor coils. This is > what determines the current you will use. If you go to a larger gauge wire > you will be able to add more turns which will give you more magnetic force > for the same current applied. This will make efficiency go up dramatically. > In other words you can build a much larger motor that will use the same > current by using larger wire with more turns, which in turn will give you > greater torque and rpm which will also increase efficiency. > The larger the coils the more back emf you will have to collect also. If > you do a little math and get a simple electronics book you will be able to > see exactly how much current a given motor will consume. This will allow > you to build a motor that will draw as little or as much current as you > wish. Of course the goal is to build a motor that will draw as little > current as possible. > It is possible to build a large motor that will draw as little as 150 > milli-amps. A large motor of this type will also have more back emf to > collect. If you don't believe all this just try rebuilding your existing > coils using two sizes bigger wire with the same resistance. This will > increas the efficiency dramaticly. > THANKS WES Wes This sounds well, but... If I apply a load at my G-Field Generator, It runs slower, and the current of the drive motor goes up. This is caused by increment of work on coils. If I increase the work performed on coils, I need more power to drive the Generator, or not? That I really thing know about G-Field is if is capable to give a RMS output, greater than needed to drive motor. I always see this machine associated to batteries. If really can work at overunity, I think batteries can be removed. Vicente http://www.ctv.es/USERS/vramos/home.htm X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 09:21:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:16:13 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Re : About RMOD V3.0 Resent-Message-ID: <"UrIxj.0.Wf5.AHKip"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8683 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Jean-Louis, Thanks for the info on Peregrinus. His and your rotary design looks interesting. The use magnetic remanence of the iron as a pump for magnetic energy effect with the ball for gravity regauge looks like it could self rotate but I don't know of what kind of torque could be for output use. Overunity yours, Michael X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 09:31:15 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:30:59 -0700 From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: B25B@LCIA.COM Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scanning Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:17:31 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net References: <33B0727E.629D@LCIA.COM> Lines: 13 Resent-Message-ID: <"dSQu01.0.bm6.2VKip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3976 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >> cheap way to scan things is to fax them to >>to yourself or from a real fax machine to your >>computer fax. > >Bob, How do you get from your fax screen to your >Email page to send it Email? Your "fax screen" should end up as a file on your hard disk in some form if you are faxing some thing to your fax software. I then take this file and send it out as an attachment to a normal e-mail message. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 09:50:25 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:46:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: Re: Scanning Resent-Message-ID: <"E1u8X3.0.4f2.1lKip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3977 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >>> cheap way to scan things is to fax them to >>>to yourself or from a real fax machine to your >>>computer fax. >> >>Bob, How do you get from your fax screen to your >>Email page to send it Email? > >Your "fax screen" should end up as a file on your hard disk >in some form if you are faxing some thing to your fax >software. I then take this file and send it out as an >attachment to a normal e-mail message. > > Most fax software will export a page as a standard image. Group 3 tiff for example. This can then be scaled down a bit, saved as a gif and then is ready for a web page. Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /***********************************************************/ /* Anything said by me on this list that I have originated */ /* is in the public domain. PS There's no money in energy. */ /* - At least not after everybody owns an energy device! - */ /****** *****************************************************/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 09:24:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:15:48 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Microwave plasmoids again References: Resent-Message-ID: <"l1x_4.0.En1.OPKip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3975 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Bill! Interesting experiments you are doing with the microwave plasmoids..... Brings to mind some experiments done a few years back by I believe it was the father/son team of Corum...they also said you could throw off ball lightning using tesla coils to ignite carbon spheres....don't recall all the details but it was very similar.. .I think they said they could throw them for several feet... Just as an interesting aside about something I kick myself for having missed, at an ITS conference several years ago, Norman Wootan told me the Corums had demonstrated a BB gun that threw out a stream of BBs and you could adjust the distance between them. ....they attached a tesla coil to the emitter and the sparks jumped from one BB to the other so that you could 'throw' the spark in a continuos bolt as far as you could shoot the BBs....and that reminded me of an article in an old SciAm (1800's) about a p roposal by Thomas Edison to use electrified jets of salt water, shot from the towers of forts to repel invading Indians....shock em to insensibility, then go down and clean up....weirder and weirder....seeya! -- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, Republic of Texas - 75187 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 10:15:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:15:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:17:45 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Bedini motors Resent-Message-ID: <"gfiOH3.0.Np3.s8Lip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3978 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga wrote: >> >> Wes Crosiar wrote: > > > >Any 'free energy' device that is based on rechargable batteries is >doomed. > snip-- Bob Shannon wrote, >Any 'free energy' device that is based on rechargable batteries is >doomed. Obviously, Bob, this is your opinion. And to clarify: Joseph Newman has _never_ described his system as a 'free energy' device. [Note to an earlier comment: Joseph Newman has also stated that the voltage and current (with the DC [battery] voltage sourc e) are in phase. This was further verified by individuals who conducted tests on his prototypes. Evan Soule' X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 08:52:47 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:48:52 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: vramos@ctv.es CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini motors References: <199706241617.JAA11480@claim.goldrush.com> <33B10F3A.1275@ctv.es> Resent-Message-ID: <"R4bkS1.0.HO.HxJip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3974 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga wrote: > > Wes Crosiar wrote: > > It is possible to build a large motor that will draw as little as 150 > > milli-amps. A large motor of this type will also have more back emf to > > collect. If you don't believe all this just try rebuilding your existing > > coils using two sizes bigger wire with the same resistance. This will > > increas the efficiency dramaticly. > > THANKS WES > Wes There are conventional methods to increase the efficiency of a motor, but these will not break the 100% mark. > This sounds well, but... > If I apply a load at my G-Field Generator, It runs slower, and the > current of the drive motor goes up. This is caused by increment of work > on coils. > If I increase the work performed on coils, I need more power to drive > the Generator, or not? > That I really thing know about G-Field is if is capable to give a RMS > output, greater than needed to drive motor. I am not aware of any proven demonstration of a closed loop G field device. > I always see this machine associated to batteries. If really can work at > overunity, I think batteries can be removed. > Vicente An excellent point! The Newman machine claims over unity, but it also comes with a claim that one cannot simply connect the output back to the input and remove the battery. It is also claimed that you cannot substitue a bank of capacitors for the batter ies either. Any 'free energy' device that is based on rechargable batteries is doomed. The batteries cannot be discharged and recharged without depleating the electrolyte. Even if we captured 100% of the back EMF and pumped this (with no switching losses!) to the battery, we must accept that the battery does not return anything near 100% o f the total charge current when it is discharged, so the machine will grind to a halt. We also have to account for the energy cost associated with the production and eventual disposal of that battery! X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 13:51:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:50:28 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:49:50 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: freenrg-L@eskimo.com Subject: Bedini motors Resent-Message-ID: <"0L5582.0.sF3.IIOip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3980 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi all Very thanks for your support. I contacted with John at the beginning of my experiencies with this generators, and I was not satisfied with his explanations. In all of cases, I DON'T WANT SAY THIS DEVICES DON'T WORK, because I can't see the devices built b y John (I'm in Spain). The original Bedini free energy generator (the first appears on his page) only generates a high voltage repetitive peak, that applied to a battery, "taps" free energy. This system is used on the Tesla Switch, and other devices. I tested the Tesla Switch, before Jean Naudin and I found the same result: don't work. It's very difficult to test because the battery capacitance confuse the test. But, in all cases, if the device is tested along a few hours, batteries ends discharged. I can't understand how 13 years ago Bedini's discover, anybody can't build a working free generator of this type. Vicente. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 12:09:49 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:00:31 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: M-waves References: <33B16054.357E@keelynet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"6efQJ.0.4f.1qMip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3979 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Folks! Found this very odd URL which you might like to check out...the guy says he has discovered what he calls M-waves and from his description, it sounds like matter waves or some kind of aether/zpe detector...check out; http://www.chatlink.com/~oedphd/article.html -- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, Republic of Texas - 75187 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 14:32:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:28:14 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:21:07 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Interesting discovery Resent-Message-ID: <"Faqv6.0.nQ5.hrOip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3982 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com In doing some research with permanent magnets, I found a very interesting sequence of events. First, draw three lines from a common point, at 120 degrees apart, close to what a Y looks like, then get three magnets. Next, place the magnets at equal p oints from the center of the Y on the three lines. Space them so that their attraction and repulsion forces are very weak with respect to each other. Put the top two magnets with their north poles facing to the center of the Y , so that they would be in repulsion if they were moved to the center of the Y . Next, put the third magnet's south pole facing to the center of the Y . Now if you move all three magnets at the same speed to the center, they will all be attracted to the center, and the top two will not repell each other. Then if you hold the top two in place and remove the bottom magnet away and then let go of the top two, they repell each other! I am looking at a balance system for each magnet, (each magnet is connected to to a magnet that is working in the opposite with respect to force, repulsion/attraction. This would mean that you could move the three magnets into the center and then remo ve the bottom magnet away without doing any work to speak of. Then the two magnets on top would be in repulsion with each other and with their balance system.) To better understand the balance system, think of an X turned side ways that has a pivot poin t in the center. The left side has two magnets working in repulsion, the right side, two in attraction. Now as you move the ends together in a sissors fashion, the forces cancel each other. I have built a fixture like this and it works just fine. There is a little trick to getting the three magnets to pull to the center without the top two trying to repell each other, it has to do with the bottom magnet.Can you guess what it is? I see overunity in this. Your comments or questions, please. Butch LaFonte X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 17:53:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:52:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: SMOT - minor ideas 2 X-Attachments: D:\PER\EXITRAD.GIF; Resent-Message-ID: <"g-fg81.0.Mo6.mrRip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3983 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I've found that 'radiusing' the bottom of the exit channel makes for rather inflexible exit parameters. With a 'cookbook' design like the SMOT Mark II, this may not be a problem, but while experimenting it is a severe limitation. I want to be able to adju st the height of the exiting radius. I get better exits when the *receiving* track has a little ramp on its start, where it catches the ball. That way no matter what the height of the ramp, the ball always can drop a maximum distance before being disturbed from its drop. If you're using aluminum channel, an important factor is to smoothly match the surface of the receiving curve to the ramp endface. (A crude but flexible and effective way to do this is to use a small piece of wider channel to link the ramp and exit track. The wider channel may or may not be radiused). Attached is a simple GIF picture of both methods. If using N-guage railroad track, the receiving track is bent upward. Splay its rails outward a bit at the top. The ramp's downward exit track now fits inside of it to allow better track coupling at any height. Sorry, couldn't figure a good way to draw tha t one, I'm not much of an artist. Dan Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\EXITRAD.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 17:53:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:52:21 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:52:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: SMOT - minor ideas 1 Resent-Message-ID: <"HIR1e3.0.QP1.2rRip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3984 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com If you're using steel pins on the inner face of your magnet arrays to hold them in place, try using round wooden toothpicks instead. They don't distort the mag field, and they're easier to lock in place after adjustments. You can use a thin piece of wood between the toothpicks and the magnets; once you get things roughly adjusted the wood can be glued to the toothpicks without moving them; you can then glue the wood supports to the base to make the setup very solid. Painful experience prompts me to add th e suggestion to cut the toothpicks in half, so there is only one pointy end. Dan X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 22:13:36 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:12:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: skot@compumedia.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: skot@compumedia.com (Scott Becker) Subject: Re: Bedini motors Resent-Message-ID: <"V2QM43.0.gx1.yfVip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3986 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > > ...And to clarify: Joseph Newman has _never_ described > his system as a 'free energy' device... > >Evan Soule' > Ex-squeeze-me. What in tarnation is it then???? Scott Becker skot@compumedia.com /***********************************************************/ /* Anything said by me on this list that I have originated */ /* is in the public domain. PS There's no money in energy. */ /* - At least not after everybody owns an energy device! - */ /****** *****************************************************/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 02:58:32 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 02:58:09 -0700 From: "Wes Crosiar" To: Subject: newman motors Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:17:44 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"TB3j71.0.IS4.nqZip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3989 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi all, There was a lot of talk before the smot project began about several people who were building Newman motors. Several people had bought wire, magnets etc. It would be interesting to hear the progress. Question: Who was the guy from what state and ci ty [on the video] that successfully built a Newman motor. Is he happy with the recharging and lifespan of the batteries. It would be interesting to hear what his progress is. Has anyone found a source of cheap wire, magnets, etc. Is there anyone who wants to sell wire, magnets etc. THANKS WES X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 01:56:02 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:24:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: SMOT - GIF correction X-Attachments: D:\PER\EXITRAD.GIF; Resent-Message-ID: <"GZUi3.0.wB3.UwYip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3988 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com sorry about that - posted the wrong picture. This is the correct one, showing 2 different ways to make the bottom of an exit. Dan Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\EXITRAD.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 00:32:05 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:32:12 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 03:05:02 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: gwatson@microtronics.com.au Subject: Re : SMOT Kit update Resent-Message-ID: <"99XGn3.0.kA6.ohXip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3987 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 25/06/1997 12:51:41 , Greg Watson wrote : << I have frozen the SMOT kits at Mk2 level. I expect the perspex bases to be delivered by late this week or early next week. ...... Therefore, I expect to start shipping kits in about 2 weeks. Sorry for the delay, but I know you understand how important it is for everything to be correct. -- Best Regards, Greg>> Hi Greg, When you should able to show the pictures/Videos of your SMOTs running in closed loop ? I think that this action will be help all SMOTs experimenters to find the good way in the testing phase. Jean-Louis Naudin X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 04:45:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 04:43:43 -0700 Date: 26 Jun 1997 07:41 EDT Sender: "Gene Batten" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: "Gene Batten" Subject: re:Interesting discovery Resent-Message-ID: <"1m3eo1.0.xv7.kNbip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3990 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Butch LaFonte, Yes, this is very interesting. I think I understand your explanation of the "Y" system. Have you formed an opinion (theory) as to what is happening with the magnets? How much force is required to remove the "bottom" magnet? Is it more, less, or about the same force as if you were removing it from attraction by only one magnet? What I am getting at is do you know if the net "repulsive" force of the system is greater th an the net "attractive" force? Said another way, if we performed an "energy balance" on this system, would there be some energy "left over" after a complete cycle? I am not sure I understand what you are illustrating with the "x" reference. Is it possible for you to put this on a web page with graphics? ... Gene Batten mdleb@nortel.ca In message "Interesting discovery", you write: > In doing some research with permanent magnets, I found a very interesting > sequence of events. First, draw three lines from a common point, at 120 > degrees apart, close to what a Y looks like, then get three magnets. Next, > place the magnets at equal points from the center of the Y on the three > lines. Space them so that their attraction and repulsion forces are very weak > with respect to each other. Put the top two magnets with their north poles > facing to the center of the Y , so that they would be in repulsion if they > were moved to the center of the Y . Next, put the third magnet's south pole > facing to the center of the Y . > Now if you move all three magnets at the same speed to the center, they > will all be attracted to the center, and the top two will not repell each > other. Then if you hold the top two in place and remove the bottom magnet > away and then let go of the top two, they repell each other! > I am looking at a balance system for each magnet, (each magnet is > connected to to a magnet that is working in the opposite with respect to > force, repulsion/attraction. This would mean that you could move the three > magnets into the center and then remove the bottom magnet away without doing > any work to speak of. Then the two magnets on top would be in repulsion with > each other and with their balance system.) To better understand the balance > system, think of an X turned side ways that has a pivot point in the > center. The left side has two magnets working in repulsion, the right side, > two in attraction. Now as you move the ends together in a sissors fashion, > the forces cancel each other. I have built a fixture like this and it works > just fine. There is a little trick to getting the three magnets to pull to > the center without the top two trying to repell each other, it has to do > with the bottom magnet.Can you guess what it is? > I see overunity in this. Your comments or questions, please. > Butch LaFonte > > X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 07:24:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Jun 97 10:17:53 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: SMOT Mk 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"BKjC82.0.k15.Cidip"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8712 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com A few comments on the Mk 2 ramps. I got a couple of metres of Peco brand flexible N-gauge track, and was surprised at the quality of the rails. The slip attached to them says they are made of nickel-silver, and certainly they are extremely well finished. They are so tiny that any eddy c urrent losses in them will be very small, and frictional losses should also be much less. I rather wish that the balls were non-conducting. Cutting and soldering the rails is straightforward if a bit finicky. To get the 4mm radius bend after the drop point, I filed away almost the whole rail from below for a length close to 2*pi mm and bent the remaining rail around the shaft of an 8mm drill bit, squeezing it against the rail with pliers and giving the rail surface some protection with foil. One minor problem is that the plastic sleepers interfere with the ball. I took off the rails and filed a scoop out of each sleeper, removing any plastic fuzz (some of it near-invisible but it would slow the ball) with a knife. The rails go back easily e nough, so I hope I'll soon be able to try the system live. I have three questions for Greg (and perhaps others). Has he been able to create a roll-around with these ramps yet? There is some apparent confusion on his web site. He says that 10mm will give a very small level rollaway, and that it really needs 12mm - but that 12mm is not easy to achieve. We also would like very much to cover progress on this project in next month's IE magazine, and would like that coverage to be as complete as possible. At present, there really is only a limited amount we could say about it, and it doesn't seem likely th at within the next three weeks (to our deadline) we would get any kits from Greg and have time to get them working - unless Greg can help out here. So, we would like to see any reliable rollarounds that anyone has to show us - within reasonable travellin g distance of NH or Atlanta, or in England. Failing that, a good videotape. If of course my effectively exact replication, which differs only in the size, 12.5mm as against 12mm, of the ball and possibly in the strength of the magnets, works OK... Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 06:48:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:46:49 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:50:08 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: newman motors Resent-Message-ID: <"EIO8a2.0.cR4.8Bdip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3992 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Hi all, There was a lot of talk before the smot project began about several >people who were building Newman motors. Several people had bought wire, >magnets etc. It would be interesting to hear the progress. Question: Who >was the guy from what state and city [on the video] that successfully built >a Newman motor. Is he happy with the recharging and lifespan of the >batteries. It would be interesting to hear what his progress is. > Has anyone found a source of cheap wire, magnets, etc. Is there anyone who >wants to sell wire, magnets etc. >THANKS WES Dear Wes, The gentleman on the videotape to whom you are referring lives in Philadelphia, PA. You may wish to contact Joseph Newman directly at (601) 947-7147 regarding the individual. Best regards, Evan X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 07:04:44 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:03:10 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:06:23 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: "Bedini" motors Resent-Message-ID: <"_3bCK2.0.9H5.SQdip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3993 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >> Bob Shannon wrote, >> >> >Any 'free energy' device that is based on rechargable batteries is >> >doomed. >> >> Obviously, Bob, this is your opinion. And to clarify: Joseph Newman has >> _never_ described his system as a 'free energy' device. [Note to an >> earlier comment: Joseph Newman has also stated that the voltage and current >> (with the DC [battery] voltage source) are in phase. This was further >> verified by individuals who conducted tests on his prototypes. >> >> Evan Soule' > >Geez Evan, relax! My post is about Bedini's work, not Newman's. > >You may have threatend him silly with talk of leagl action, but John's >work is is not the property of Newman Energy products. Thanks Bob, but I am already relaxed! :-) It was not clear from your comments that you were strictly describing the so-called "Bedini" motor since you used the word "any." While you are certainly welcome to your opinion regarding "bedini's" motor vis-a -vis Joseph Newman's earlier work (with respect to what was innovated by whom), it is my opinion that you are incorrect. And independent of your or my opinions, the final resolution will be left to Joseph Newman, John Bedini, and the courts, as appropria te. Evan X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 07:07:44 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:06:20 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:09:38 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Clarification Resent-Message-ID: <"qn3ty1.0.qX5.QTdip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3994 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >> >> ...And to clarify: Joseph Newman has _never_ described >> his system as a 'free energy' device... >> >>Evan Soule' >> > >Ex-squeeze-me. What in tarnation is it then???? > > > Scott Becker > skot@compumedia.com He has described his system as one which "Produces Greater External Energy Output Than External Energy Input." Evan Soule' X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 06:02:39 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:59:32 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini motors References: Resent-Message-ID: <"OYcOa2.0.2f2.BYcip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3991 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Evan Soule wrote: > Bob Shannon wrote, > > >Any 'free energy' device that is based on rechargable batteries is > >doomed. > > Obviously, Bob, this is your opinion. And to clarify: Joseph Newman has > _never_ described his system as a 'free energy' device. [Note to an > earlier comment: Joseph Newman has also stated that the voltage and current > (with the DC [battery] voltage source) are in phase. This was further > verified by individuals who conducted tests on his prototypes. > > Evan Soule' Geez Evan, relax! My post is about Bedini's work, not Newmans. You may have threatend him silly with talk of leagl action, but John's work is is not the property of Newman Energy products. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 10:25:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:27:16 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: harti@shell2.ba.best.com (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: New theory article uploaded supporting SMOT and RMOD ! Resent-Message-ID: <"B1mBh.0.g95.iNgip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3996 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com There is a new, revised and enlarged version about permanent magnet motors on my server at www.overunity.de/theory.htm written by Dipl. Physisist Dieter Bauer. It is shown that coupled cog wheels show non-conservation of angular momentum but conservation of energy. (This is contrary to the first version which stated the contrary erroneously.) Furthermore, it is shown that conservative asymetric rachet potentials can generate non-conservative force fields if coupled to a non constant charge. This model can be applied to Greg Watson's SMOT and RMOD perpetuum mobile devices where the magnetic field density can be regarded as the potential and the changing non-linear permeability of the iron in the field represents the charge. Regards, Stefan Hartmann -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 07:35:55 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:34:35 -0700 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:31:52 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Bedini" motors References: Resent-Message-ID: <"F26rY2.0.-z6.wtdip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3995 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Evan Soule wrote: > Thanks Bob, but I am already relaxed! :-) It was not clear from your > comments that you were strictly describing the so-called "Bedini" motor > since you used the word "any." Evan, I used the term "free energy" device, which according to your own words should disqualify Mr. Newman's machine! X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 10:52:19 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:50:30 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:53:36 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: "Bedini" motors Resent-Message-ID: <"fODW93.0.Xj1.blgip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3997 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Evan Soule' wrote: > >> Thanks Bob, but I am already relaxed! :-) It was not clear from your >> comments that you were strictly describing the so-called "Bedini" motor >> since you used the word "any." > >Evan, I used the term "free energy" device, which according to your own >words should disqualify Mr. Newman's machine! Yes, you are correct and I appreciate your knowledge of the distinction since some are not aware of this distinction and have incorrectly labeled it as/assumed it is a "free energy" device. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 13:24:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:24:21 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:23:36 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Questions from Gene Batten Resent-Message-ID: <"RtdZr.0.QO1.p_iip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3998 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Gene wrote: Butch LaFonte, Yes, this is very interesting. I think I understand your explanation of the "Y" system. Have you formed an opinion (theory) as to what is happening with the magnets? How much force is required to remove the "bottom" magnet? Is it more, less, or about the same force as if you were removing it from attraction by only one magnet? What I am getting at is do you know if the net "repulsive" force of the system is greater th an the net "attractive" force? Said another way, if we performed an "energy balance" on this system, would there be some energy "left over" after a complete cycle? I am not sure I understand what you are illustrating with the "x" reference. Is it possible for you to put this on a web page with graphics? ... Gene Batten mdleb@nortel.ca snip > Gene, I am in the process of doing an energy balance study. At this point I see the three magnets working together as if there were only two magnets acting in the attraction mode. Then when the bottom magnet is removed, the remaining magnet "splits" into tw o magnets in the repulsion mode. This final repulsion should be overunity. I think the flux leaving the uppermost poles of the two magnets on the top of the Y is drawn straight to lower pole of the bottom magnet.This could be what is keeping the two top magnets from repelling each other during the move to the center. I have a lot of research to do still and would appreciate any help. What would be great is if I could get an illustration of the magnetic fields interacting like Greg has on the SMOT. I still have a lot to learn about creating files and sending them on the net. My graphics software is a low cost program called keyCad and I can't get the files to convert like they are suppose to. After I convert them, I can't find them! If you could give me a fax number I could fax you a drawing of the balance system. I will start a web page as soon as possible to illustrate this system. I see a lot of promise in this system. If the top two magnets were replaced with two stators, the collapsing magnetic field around the coil would cause the stators to repel as the bottom magnet was removed. Reply and maybe we can get this to work. Thanks, Butch Note: I got the balance system idea from Bertil Werjefelt, he has used it for years now. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 16:00:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:59:56 -0700 Date: 26 Jun 1997 16:45 EDT Sender: "Gene Batten" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: "Gene Batten" Subject: re:Questions from Gene Batten Resent-Message-ID: <"Ch4K01.0.Dy.gHlip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4002 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > Gene, > I am in the process of doing an energy balance study. At this point I see > the three magnets working together as if there were only two magnets acting > in the attraction mode. Then when the bottom magnet is removed, the remaining > magnet "splits" into two magnets in the repulsion mode. This final repulsion > should be overunity. Butch, You say above, "This final repulsion should be overunity". Why do you think so? What evidence supports your view? How much "overunity"? A little, a lot? > I think the flux leaving the uppermost poles of the two magnets on the > top of the Y is drawn straight to lower pole of the bottom magnet.This could > be what is keeping the two top magnets from repelling each other during the > move to the center. Is the attraction force of the three magnets greater than the repulsive force of the two remaining magnets? You probably do not know the answers to these questions yet. It is something to think about. >I have a lot of research to do still and would appreciate > any help. What would be great is if I could get an illustration of the > magnetic fields interacting like Greg has on the SMOT. > I still have a lot to learn about creating files and sending them on the > net. My graphics software is a low cost program called keyCad and I can't get > the files to convert like they are suppose to. After I convert them, I can't > find them! > If you could give me a fax number I could fax you a drawing of the > balance system. My fax number is 919-991-7440. Please put my name on the fax. We have lots of fax traffic here. ... Gene Batten mdleb@nortel.ca X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 14:31:28 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:27:29 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: newman motors Resent-Message-ID: <"4XP2G2.0.GG.4_jip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4000 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > Has anyone found a source of cheap wire, magnets, etc. Is there anyone who > wants to sell wire, magnets etc. > THANKS WES > www.dodads.com ..... hobby-experiment stuff. Page is rough .. they mainly take requests. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 15:17:44 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:23:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Y" Resent-Message-ID: <"F2AXM1.0.Hs1.Rgkip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4001 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 HLafonte@aol.com wrote: > I still have a lot to learn about creating files and sending them on the > net. My graphics software is a low cost program called keyCad and I can't get > the files to convert like they are suppose to. After I convert them, I can't > find them! *** > If you could give me a fax number I could fax you a drawing of the > balance system. You didn't mentioned the type system your running, but with a PC you can create a simple "lookfor" bat file with you EDITOR in non-document mode. This is a lot off the list-server bandwidth areas of discussion, but I too like you "Y" concept.. Make a file called "LOOKFOR.BAT" and add the following lines and SAVE it (or copy it) to your ROOT DIRECTORY), or somewhere along your PATH 'like UTILS' etc . Simple, Quick & Effective! -------------Start of Lookfor.BAT @REM *************LOOKFOR.BAT*************** @REM Searches ALL directories on current @REM Drive for a file.NAME.* @ECHO Did you remember to use UPPERCASE? @ECHO (Press ^C to Cancel if not) PAUSE @ECHO Searching...... @ECHO OFF c: CHKDSK /V | FIND "%1%" | MORE c: @ECHO ON ---------------------------END OF lookfor.BAT-------- NOTE c:'s (drive can be extended to d: e: f: etc....) The above searches need to be CAPITALIZED normally for DOS or PC. The 'PAUSE' will Give you a chance to ABORT.. (as "lookfor gif" will return No File(s) Found... but "lookfor GIF" will return Every File with GIF in it's name. Once you have this in your Root Directory you can Lookfor GIF, or Lookfor BAK, Lookfor ARTWORK or whatever else your 'named-it' on your conversion. ps, is your 'Trick' on the "Y" the gravity pulling the South pole magnet down? I see a circular "Y" with Mags in Tubes or straws that would drop the South pole, but not the Norths as they approached the top of the cycle as two would repel and 'hold' posi tion. You mentioned sending a fax, my number is (303) 293-2329 Best Regards, se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 17:26:20 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:40:21 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Butch LaFonte's BigY Resent-Message-ID: <"AjiTS2.0.396.tYmip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4003 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com HI All, I have completed a QF sim of Butch's idea. http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/lafonte.html Its also in my links page. I am working on a animated Gif. Look like the good old "Blue Hole" is at work again. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 18:14:33 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:38:49 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Mk 2 Beta 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"2CpCi2.0.Um.cFnip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4004 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have found that my achieving good side to side magnetic balancing, the magnet arrays can be lifted at least 3mm ABOVE the ball centre. This seems to cause almost NO reduction in up the ramp operation. In fact it can actually improve it due to the ball 's upward attraction and hence reduced frictional ramp losses. The real result is that it really REDUCES the draw back forces as the ball exits. This means the ball on rollaway acts like it has fallen down a 13mm exit slope (magnetically) instead of the actual 10mm slope. The bottom line is : 1) Improved up the ramp operation. (Much quieter) 2) Reduced magnet array overhang. (More attractive ball forces) 3) Increased punch through into the "Blue Hole". 4) Reduced draw back on going down the exit slope. 5) Reduced draw back on rollaway. 6) Easier "Rollaways". Rollaways are still tricky, but this really helps. Remember to get this to happen, you need GOOD side to side balancing or the ball will be drawn off the ramp's rails by the elevated magnet arrays. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 22:15:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:14:17 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:13:42 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Reply to Steve Ekwall Resent-Message-ID: <"dzsmz.0.5f6.emqip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4005 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Steve, Thanks for the info. I will fax you copies of balance system in the morning. The "trick" I talked about, may not be needed. I thought at first the bottom magnet had to be stronger than either of the two top magnets. But at this point it looks as though it can be the same size as each one of the other top magnets. I will know for sure tomorrow morning. Thanks again, Butch X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 22:15:18 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:14:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:14:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Questions from Gene Batten Resent-Message-ID: <"NZUei2.0.Jg6.wmqip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4006 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Butch, Thanks for sharing your interesting observations on the "Y" system! I built and played with it today and it looks like it could be OU. To make my "Y" unit work I had to tape the bottom magnet down. By the feel of the mag strength, as I moved the two top magnets toward the bottom one, I determined it could be extra energy when the two top magnets separate, like you mentioned. Greg's Qfield sim shows lots of Blue Holes, but what can we do with them? Maybe SMOT balls or other ferromag materials could be app lied in a useful manner. Maybe a combination of an Ecklin's (3,879,622) spinning iron shield shutter in front of the bottom magnet with the top two magnets attached to a spring or rotary shaft for power output. Did you build the sissor system that showed an unusual effect? The "X" sissor system would seem to balance out with no motion after a period of time oscillation. Do you have any ideas on how to reduce this effect to a simple device for power takeoff in a rotary motion? I also would be interested in your energy balance data. BTW how did you discover this effect? Best Regards, Michael Randall At 04:23 PM 6/26/97 -0400, Butch LaFonte wrote: >Gene wrote: >Butch LaFonte, > >Yes, this is very interesting. I think I understand your explanation of >the "Y" system. Have you formed an opinion (theory) as to what is >happening with the magnets? > [snip] X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 22:27:19 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:27:06 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:52:41 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT rollaways NOW 3!!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"BSN3H3.0._a7.dyqip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4007 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, Have just updated the SMOT results page on my site. We now have 3 x reported rollaways and 1 x rollaround. I have also updated the SMOT Mk2 Beta 3 data. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 13:31:13 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:25:27 -0700 Organization: st.ComTech GmbH To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New theory article uploaded supporting SMOT and RMOD ! References: <199706261727.TAA18094@mail.bbtt.de> X-Sender: 0333429017-0002@t-online.de (Schenk & Trieloff,=st=Software, Herr Schenk) From: J.F.Schenk@t-online.de (J.F.Schenk) Resent-Message-ID: <"kG-WE2.0.OF5.q5jip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3999 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Stefan, The pictures of the BHT device on your web site are very interesting, but we are still waiting for the lab results you announced weeks ago! Maybe we all can learn from it even if the device does not reach o/u. looking forward for your data J.F.Schenk X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 22:55:40 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:55:59 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:54:27 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Thanks to Greg Resent-Message-ID: <"vH4nr1.0.av4.iNrip"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4008 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, Thanks for the graphics. I was not expecting to find myself on the web today. Here in Birmingham, Alabama (USA) there are not many"overunity" people. Thank GOD for the web. I will keep everyone informed of any developments. If you come up with anything let me know. I will send a fax to anyone who wants to see the balance system. Maybe someone who has the time can get it on the web. I'm calling in help to learn h ow to get files on the web, e-mail, ect. My three Girls are out of school now and I have to wait in line to get on the computer. I had to wait a long time today as it is 1:00 AM now. Thanks again, Butch X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 23:39:33 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:38:51 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:04:32 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: Thanks to Greg References: <970627015427_58769772@emout06.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"f2VR41.0.fR2.v_rip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4009 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com HLafonte@aol.com wrote: > > Greg, > Thanks for the graphics. I was not expecting to find myself on the > web > today. Here in Birmingham, Alabama (USA) there are not many"overunity" > people. Thank GOD > for the web. I will keep everyone informed of any developments. If you > come > up with anything let me know. I will send a fax to anyone who wants to > see > the balance system. Maybe someone who has the time can get it on the > web. I'm > calling in help to learn how to get files on the web, e-mail, ect. > My three Girls are out of school now and I have to wait in line to > get on > the computer. I had to wait a long time today as it is 1:00 AM now. > Thanks again, > Butch Hi Butch, Glad to be of help. Fax me anything you want. I can grad it and update "Your" page with it. I will have a animated Gif, of the magnets moving closer together, up tomorrow. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 00:19:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:18:10 -0700 Date: 27 Jun 97 03:16:41 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: SMOT rollaways NOW 3!!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"bb_lx1.0.M05.oasip"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8742 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, > We now have 3 x reported rollaways and 1 x rollaround. Good. I realise you are busy, but any chance you could answer my questions as posted yesterday? Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 00:35:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:34:38 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:00:24 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Guest Book Facilities Resent-Message-ID: <"rkutk3.0.nF5.Dqsip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4010 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have just updated my site with a guest book facility. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 02:04:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:03:32 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:03:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@blue.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re:SMOT Mk 2 Beta 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"95lGR3.0.KL7.Z7uip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4011 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Beta 3 adjustment works for me. Level rollaway with good excess force. Technical details first, personal remarks follow for those who care to read on. Ramp lift: 16mm Rollaway distance: Unfortunately was not able to measure the full distance, because was using a short bit of track. But it was at least 90mm, and was still moving fast. Magnet height: center is 4mm above ball center. Array configuration: stepped 1,2,3,4. Total length 76mm. Distance between arrays: 38mm Distance from end of array to ramp exit end: 17mm Track: N-guage RR track, two pieces: ramp and receiver. Ramp has a 3-4mm radius at exit end, and extends downward 8mm. Receiving track has about 8mm radius and is spread slightly at top so the ramp exit fits down into it a bit. This allows easy ramp heigh t adjustments. Ball: 14mm bearing, heat treated. Magnets: 6mm thick x 10mm high x 19mm long, ceramic grade 5. Source: ALL Magnetics part number CB1434, 500 for $75.00, 100 for $20.00 930 S. Placentia Placentia, California 92670 800-525-3536 As mentioned in a previous post, I'm currently using wood toothpicks to hold things in place instead of steel pins... except for the RR track, which is held down with bits of stainless wire as staples. And I strongly recommend the bottom radius on a separ ate pickup track for easy height adjustments. ------------- Personal notes: When I saw Greg's post, stating better results with magnets 3mm above ball center, I thought "yeah, right. No way". I haven't previously been able to get *any* ramp to work without having the magnet center *below* ball center. But I sat here and finished off my RedTail Ale (good stuff, highly recommended), and thought, well, what the hey, might as well give it a try. Started out with the array pairs too close, couldn't get balance with the high positioning, so opened them up wide and set the lift low. Looked promising, but too low for rollaway power. Gradually brought the sides together, maintaining balance and increa sing lift a bit each time. That did the trick. For those not using the N-guage track, I highly recommend it. Makes a big difference. But it's very difficult for me to work with. One question I have is: how the heck do you make those cuts to radius it, without mucking up the delicate connections to the plastic sleepers? The minor amount of torquing that happens when I hacksaw it tears the sleepers off. Maybe there are more sturdy brands than what I have? It will be a while before I can get the rollaway distance measured, as well as trying for a rollaround. Am in the process of moving, but had to make this one more try. SMOT paraphernalia and this computer will be about the last to be moved, and the first to be set back up in the new location. Now that I've had multiple rollaways, and this last one was so solid, it's getting fun again! :-) Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 02:13:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:03:34 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:03:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@blue.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: freenrg-l@e skimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re:SMOT Mk 2 Beta 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"95lGR3.0.VL7.a7uip"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8747 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Beta 3 adjustment works for me. Level rollaway with good excess force. Technical details first, personal remarks follow for those who care to read on. Ramp lift: 16mm Rollaway distance: Unfortunately was not able to measure the full distance, because was using a short bit of track. But it was at least 90mm, and was still moving fast. Magnet height: center is 4mm above ball center. Array configuration: stepped 1,2,3,4. Total length 76mm. Distance between arrays: 38mm Distance from end of array to ramp exit end: 17mm Track: N-guage RR track, two pieces: ramp and receiver. Ramp has a 3-4mm radius at exit end, and extends downward 8mm. Receiving track has about 8mm radius and is spread slightly at top so the ramp exit fits down into it a bit. This allows easy ramp heigh t adjustments. Ball: 14mm bearing, heat treated. Magnets: 6mm thick x 10mm high x 19mm long, ceramic grade 5. Source: ALL Magnetics part number CB1434, 500 for $75.00, 100 for $20.00 930 S. Placentia Placentia, California 92670 800-525-3536 As mentioned in a previous post, I'm currently using wood toothpicks to hold things in place instead of steel pins... except for the RR track, which is held down with bits of stainless wire as staples. And I strongly recommend the bottom radius on a separ ate pickup track for easy height adjustments. ------------- Personal notes: When I saw Greg's post, stating better results with magnets 3mm above ball center, I thought "yeah, right. No way". I haven't previously been able to get *any* ramp to work without having the magnet center *below* ball center. But I sat here and finished off my RedTail Ale (good stuff, highly recommended), and thought, well, what the hey, might as well give it a try. Started out with the array pairs too close, couldn't get balance with the high positioning, so opened them up wide and set the lift low. Looked promising, but too low for rollaway power. Gradually brought the sides together, maintaining balance and increa sing lift a bit each time. That did the trick. For those not using the N-guage track, I highly recommend it. Makes a big difference. But it's very difficult for me to work with. One question I have is: how the heck do you make those cuts to radius it, without mucking up the delicate connections to the plastic sleepers? The minor amount of torquing that happens when I hacksaw it tears the sleepers off. Maybe there are more sturdy brands than what I have? It will be a while before I can get the rollaway distance measured, as well as trying for a rollaround. Am in the process of moving, but had to make this one more try. SMOT paraphernalia and this computer will be about the last to be moved, and the first to be set back up in the new location. Now that I've had multiple rollaways, and this last one was so solid, it's getting fun again! :-) Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 02:40:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:38:01 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:37:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: Re:SMOT Mk 2 Beta 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"C-nH62.0.b8.uduip"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8749 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Dan Quickert wrote: > Beta 3 adjustment works for me. Level rollaway with good excess force. > Technical details first, personal remarks follow for those who care to read on. > Congratulations Dan! I liked your ideas about seperate receiving sections from the ramp drop off. I've tried it but my attempts to put curves into "N-Gauge" track were pretty hopeless. All the force from the ball dropping off the end of my "N-Gauge" ramp was absorbed by the track. I concur that "N-Gauge" railway line works as a better ramp. I've also tried raising the magnets above the ball center and have found that the ramp still works about as well as previously. It does look promising. From my earlier efforts with the Mark 2, I think there's a good chance of seeing a roll-away with raised magnets and decent ramp interfaces. I've found the "N-gauge" very hard to bend. I like Chris Tinsley's idea of filing away the flat bit on the bottom. I'll try that next in my attempts to get a roll-away from a "Mark 2 Beta 3". Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 03:21:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Jun 97 06:17:00 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re:SMOT Mk 2 Beta 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZGQML1.0.qf1.-Evip"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8751 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Martin, > I've found the "N-gauge" very hard to bend. I like Chris Tinsley's > idea of filing away the flat bit on the bottom. I'll try that next > in my attempts to get a roll-away from a "Mark 2 Beta 3". Actually, I file away the whole underside - horizontal bit and vertical bit as well. I just leave the very upper part which the ball rolls on. I suspect that quality varies a lot with different makes. I'm very impressed with the Peco variety, wherever that comes from. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 03:45:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:45:28 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:45:15 +0800 (SGT) X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: mpower consultants Subject: FREE ENERGY, not Newman machines... Resent-Message-ID: <"L_shE2.0.ss1.7dvip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4013 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Evan Soule posted the following (edited for brevity) at 12:53 1997.06.26 -0600: > >Yes, you are correct and I appreciate your knowledge of the distinction >since some are not aware of this distinction and have incorrectly labeled >it as/assumed it is a "free energy" device. > Pardon me, but I thought the focus of this listserv was FREE ENERGY, not Newman machines... MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 * (-latest update: 1997.06.25.12:30-) ***************************************************** X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 05:06:20 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:06:14 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:31:52 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Butch LaFonte's Big Y Resent-Message-ID: <"CQnC-3.0.Cn3.oowip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4014 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have updated the QF sim with an animated Gif of Butch's idea. It looks really interesting. Awaiting for Butch's next stage. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 05:11:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:06:10 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:31:52 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Butch LaFonte's Big Y Resent-Message-ID: <"CQnC-3.0.um3.mowip"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8754 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have updated the QF sim with an animated Gif of Butch's idea. It looks really interesting. Awaiting for Butch's next stage. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 06:30:56 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 06:30:45 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:34:05 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: "Free Energy"? "Over-unity"? Resent-Message-ID: <"MxDZz.0.bs6.42yip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4015 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Evan Soule posted the following (edited for brevity) at 12:53 1997.06.26 -0600: >> >>Yes, you are correct and I appreciate your knowledge of the distinction >>since some are not aware of this distinction and have incorrectly labeled >>it as/assumed it is a "free energy" device. >> > >Pardon me, but I thought the focus of this listserv was FREE ENERGY, > not Newman machines... >MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM >* http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 >* (-latest update: 1997.06.25.12:30-) >***************************************************** What I found particulary interesting was an "experiment" conducted some time ago in which people were asked their opinions regarding the nature of "over-unity" (also sometimes called "free-energy")....what I found interesting was the diverse set of opinio ns regarding this topic -- some of which seemed to contradict one another. Apparently this, and related paradigms, are quite broad in their interpretation by some. Gyroscopically yours, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "The day when we shall know exactly what electricity is, will chronicle an event probably greater than any other recorded in the human race." --- NIKOLA TESLA X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 11:58:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:56:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:55:07 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SMOT Mk 2 Beta 3 Cc: List Server Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"k3Q2d2.0.pp4.9p0jp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8773 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 10:38 AM 6/27/97, Greg Watson wrote: >Hi All, > >I have found that my achieving good side to side magnetic balancing, the >magnet arrays can be lifted at least 3mm ABOVE the ball centre. This >seems to cause almost NO reduction in up the ramp operation. In fact it >can actually improve it due to the ball's upward attraction and hence >reduced frictional ramp losses. > >The real result is that it really REDUCES the draw back forces as the >ball exits. This means the ball on rollaway acts like it has fallen >down a 13mm exit slope (magnetically) instead of the actual 10mm slope. > >The bottom line is : > > 1) Improved up the ramp operation. (Much quieter) > 2) Reduced magnet array overhang. (More attractive ball forces) > 3) Increased punch through into the "Blue Hole". > 4) Reduced draw back on going down the exit slope. > 5) Reduced draw back on rollaway. > 6) Easier "Rollaways". > [snip] >-- >Best Regards, > Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ This provides the same benefits as an overhead magnetic array, except an overhead array helps center the ball. The problem with strictly an overhed array is that the magnetic field density achievable is very limited. This can be overcome by using magnet s under the track. The main problem with magnets under the track is that the lower array must stop or diverge prior to the hole. Another major advantage to using magnets above and below the track is that it fights or prevents permanent magnetization of the ball because the rotation of the ball is in the plane of the magnetic field, thus creating an oscillating polarity condition with respect to any ball magnetization that aligns the ball. In experimenting with this I found that a magnetized ball perform ed poorly and rolled with a jerking motion. The above thoughts lead to an idea for a hybrid design using 3 arrays, two repulsing arrays low and to the side, both, say, N toward ball, and one attracting array on top with S toward ball: N S o N N S S o - Ball on track S - South magnetic pole N - North Magnetic pole The above design permits splitting the lower track at the drop point and makes for a logical transition between ramps. The following is intended to portray a successive series of cross sections at successive ball positions: N S SN o NS ------------------- N S SN NS o ------------------- N S SN NS o ------------------- N S SN NS o ------------------- N S SN NS N S o N N S S ------------------- Just some ideas. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 12:48:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:45:01 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:44:02 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg From: hheffner@corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SMOT rollaways NOW 3!!!!!!!! Cc: List Server Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"u-kdB1.0.Zk6.yW1jp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8775 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com At 2:52 PM 6/27/97, Greg Watson wrote: >Hi All, > >Have just updated the SMOT results page on my site. > >We now have 3 x reported rollaways and 1 x rollaround. > >I have also updated the SMOT Mk2 Beta 3 data. > >-- >Best Regards, > Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ It seems to me that a rollaway is not a significant event without proven great care in establishing with all necessary precision that the final height of the ball is above its starting elevation. For example, I experienced many rollaways using a 1" ball bearing on a 102 cm length of N guage track with a 1 mm high broad hill in the middle of the track. I used an overhead magnet array formed from stacks of of 18 mm dia 5 mm thick ceramic refrigerat or magnets placed on top of a 275 mm long 8 mm wide 1 mm thick steel strip cut from a Pendflex folder hanger strip. Lots of configurations did not work, but lots worked, including 2-4-6-8-6-4-2 and 2-4-6-8-2-4-6, depending on how the magnetic array was p ositioned relative to the peak of the hill. (The array was set up on overhead plastic supports so it could be easily slid back and forth along the track.) However, the difficulty was in proving that the exit elevation was greater then the starting elevat ion. I removed the magnet array and the material under the track used to create the hill numerous times and rolled the ball from one end of the track to the other. There was a slight dip in the table, providing a track situation similar to that suggeste d by JL Nauden (who does such good work.) The track was always initially arranged so that releasing the ball at the start position just permitted it to reach within about 4 cm of the other end of the track. After a rollaway occurred, the magnet array an d supports for the hill were removed to verify the track was still level. Almost invariably, the ball would roll off the end of the track in the verification test, indicating that somehow the table had shifted position ever so slightly. One time I got a very good rollaway, but then discovered it was due to an envelope full of magnets accidently left about 15 cm from the end of the track. The table used was wood composition board with steel legs and was 6' long. The problem may have been that the table was on carpet. However, it had been many months in the same location. The important point is that it is very easy to fool yourself and somewhat difficult to prove the significance of a rollaway because (1) the steel ball on smooth metal tracks is so efficient and (2) to prove the trackis level typically involves disturbing the experiment configuration to check for level. I don't think a carpenter's level comes anywhwere near the precision required to check the above experiment. It appears closing the loop is necessary, unless the rollaway is extreme. Other experiments differ, but the initial and final conditions are not so different. Success and failure are just less than a hair's breadth apart. Regards, Horace Heffner X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 14:11:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:03:20 -0700 Date: 27 Jun 97 17:02:28 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Use bias to avoid false rollaway Resent-Message-ID: <"u_Sty2.0.Co1.Ng2jp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8776 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com To: Vortex Horace Heffner describes some of the difficulties achieving a true SMOT rollaway: It seems to me that a rollaway is not a significant event without proven great care in establishing with all necessary precision that the final height of the ball is above its starting elevation. Right. And as Horace goes on to describe, this is tricker than you might think. For example, I experienced many rollaways using a 1" ball bearing on a 102 cm length of N gauge track . . . the difficulty was in proving that the exit elevation was greater then the starting elevation. I removed the magnet array and the material under the track used to create the hill numerous times and rolled the ball from one end of the track to the other. . . . After a rollaway occurred, the magnet array and supports for the hill were removed to verify the track was still level. Almost invariably, the ball would roll off the end of the track in the verification test, indicating that somehow the table had shifted position ever so slightly. I saw the same thing. I decided to place the track to a piece of Formica topped shelving, a board 40 cm x 70 cm. I put a piece of copier paper folded four times under one end of the board to give it a slight negative bias. When you place the ball on the t rack, it slowly rolls the wrong way. Unfortunately, I have never achieved rollaway with this configuration. One time I got a very good rollaway, but then discovered it was due to an envelope full of magnets accidently left about 15 cm from the end of the track. Wow! The tracks must be very smooth. It appears closing the loop is necessary, unless the rollaway is extreme. Other experiments differ, but the initial and final conditions are not so different. Success and failure are just less than a hair's breadth apart. Right. And I do not trust experiments that require hair's breadth adjustments. The effect must be scaled up to the point where it is unambiguous. If the effect is real, it seems there should be a way to enhance it enough to make an unequivocal demonstration. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 14:55:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:44:37 -0700 Date: 27 Jun 97 17:42:59 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: SMOT rollaways NOW 3!!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"pCqeI1.0.Wz3.4H3jp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8777 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com > The important point is that it is very easy to fool yourself and > somewhat difficult to prove the significance of a rollaway because > (1) the steel ball on smooth metal tracks is so efficient and (2) > to prove the trackis level typically involves disturbing the > experiment configuration to check for level. I don't think a > carpenter's level comes anywhwere near the precision required to > check the above experiment. Exactly correct. With carpet on the floor (or non-rigid packing under the legs) it is very easy to disturb the level by 1mm/m. So even reversing the board on the table isn't a reliable check. And I really would ask Greg to answer the points I raised yesterday. My scepticism ebbs and flows, but at the moment it's flowing strongly. Can I repeat the questions (which are not for Greg alone)? --------------------------------------------- Has he been able to create a roll-around with these ramps yet? There is some apparent confusion on his web site. He says that 10mm will give a very small level rollaway, and that it really needs 12mm - but that 12mm is not easy to achieve. We also would like very much to cover progress on this project in next month's IE magazine, and would like that coverage to be as complete as possible. At present, there really is only a limited amount we could say about it, and it doesn't seem likely th at within the next three weeks (to our deadline) we would get any kits from Greg and have time to get them working - unless Greg can help out here. So, we would like to see any reliable rollarounds that anyone has to show us - within reasonable travellin g distance of NH or Atlanta, or in England. Failing that, a good videotape. ------------------------------------------------------------- I would add another. How come my ramps always seem to work better when the magnets arrays are further down the ramp than Greg specifies? Anyone else had this experience? On a separate issue, Gene asks if our medics (like Mitchell) have any comments on the potassium question. I meant to ask them in my earlier post. But ... I have to say that while I have no personal concern with the familial hypokalaemia question, the fa tal (after more than 3 years survival beyond the initial coma, despite massive neurological damage) case who required the 'industrial' quantities of KCl was my late wife. Chris X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 17:06:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:06:16 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darknet.net: Host ts1-ap14.bmts.com [204.191.100.114] claimed to be bmts.com.bmts.com Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:05:01 -0400 From: Steve Reply-To: darklord@darknet.net Organization: DarkNet Technologies To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: patent web page Resent-Message-ID: <"jdlnK3.0.lO2.tL5jp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4017 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I tried sending this yesterday, but because I wasn't using my computer, (I was having my scanner repaired..) it didn't get posted.. so here it is again.. -- Hi All, I think the idea of putting interesting patents on a free energy type page is great, and if anyone would be interested in doing this, and needs some web space on a fast server, let me know.. Also, I thought it might be cool to get sort of a combination pa ge, with experiments, patents and articles etc. that would link all the free energy pages. (Imagine copies of all the stuff on Bill Beaty's page, all the stuff on Keelynet, and J.L.Naudin's page , just to name a few, all on one server, with patents, ideas for experiments, etc..) Maybe something like www.freenrg.com(it's available.. I checked..) or whatever.. (if enough people are interested, I could set something temporary up on my server, to see how it works out..) I'm just an amateur experimenter, and I don't have a lot to contribute to this group.. but since I get so much info and ideas from it, I'd like to offer something in return.. and all I have that might be of use is a really fast web server with lots of space.. heh.. Oh well.. just some ideas.. :) ttyl -Steve King X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 17:31:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:30:14 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:29:35 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fax ok? Resent-Message-ID: <"hJajC3.0.Ts3.Ki5jp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4018 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Greg, Gene, Steve, did you get my fax today? I had one or two line errors. Butch X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 17:53:36 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:53:07 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:52:38 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: "Free Energy"? "Over-unity"? To: "INTERNET:freenrg-l@eskimo.com" Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"asVO61.0.TC5.n16jp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4019 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id RAA22812 Recently I tried to define free energy to a an aquaintance by email as I was seeking his help. I gave him the following definition, which stops just short of claiming to be in violation of the laws of physics. A Free Energy device is a device whose output energy is greater that its input energy plus loss of stored energy, at least as far as we can tell using measurments which are based on conventional physics. Free Energy is the net energy produced by such a de vice. It is not clear just where the energy comes from, but it does not appear to be a limited resource. I am under the impresion that most people on this list would find this to be an acceptable definition. Any attempt to make the definition more clear would only invite more dissagreement. I am also under the impresion that Mr. Newman's motor does fall within the realm which is described by this definition. Am I right? Of couse, if Mr. Newman dislikes the term "free energy", then he is not required to use it, but at least the rest of us can. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 18:43:53 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:48:03 -0400 From: B25B@LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: B25B@LCIA.COM To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Free energy web page Resent-Message-ID: <"kkEvQ1.0.jK6.zm6jp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4020 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com To Steve King: I think your idea for web page combining patents, ideas and experiments is great' Ron Brennen X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 21:24:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:23:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Bmd2323@aol.com Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:11:36 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Microwave plasmoids again Resent-Message-ID: <"ss6dz2.0.mT4.d69jp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4023 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Howdy! I wouldn't be so quick to kick myself over your idea as of yet. Right now the hottest "toy" that the Pentagon is interested in buying are what's called "Nonlethal Weapons." These are lovely little toys which may or may not kill you. Edison's idea, upda ted to use 90's technology ought to be good for a few billion in government contracts. Like the songs says: There's plenty of money to be made Selling the Army tools of the trade. Just a little thought to darken your day. Brian Drake (Bmd2323@aol.com) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 21:41:49 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:41:28 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:04:36 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Why ANY SMOT Rollaway is Way Over Ou Resent-Message-ID: <"NfVi_.0.jZ6.rN9jp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4024 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have attached a Gif of a series of simple test I just did on one of my SMOT Mk2 ramps. I shows that the SMOT Mk2 ramps are very lossy and its NOT just because of friction. It also explains why any SMOT rollaway, even lower level ones ARE Ou! Part of the SMOT puzzle is trying to understand why the losses are related to the magnet array spacing. Reduce SMOT Mk2 magnet array spacing from 30mm to 20mm and losses go up 350%!!!!!!! Just thought I would throw this one in as we seem to be getting too concerned about levels and such. Even with good N gauge track, SMOT ramps eat the balls's hard won kinetic energy. Look at the attached Gif, study the data, TRY it yourself and scratch your head. I am.......... -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\SMOTLOSS.GIF X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 19:20:32 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:19:19 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:16:26 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Free Energy"? "Over-unity"? References: <199706272052_MC2-1841-8E26@compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"T8XdV2.0.kX1.cI7jp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4021 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph E Griffin wrote: > > Recently I tried to define free energy to a an aquaintance by email as I > was seeking his help. I gave him the following definition, which stops just > short of claiming to be in violation of the laws of physics. > > A Free Energy device is a device whose output energy is greater that its > input energy plus loss of stored energy, at least as far as we can tell > using measurments which are based on conventional physics. Free Energy is > the net energy produced by such a device. It is not clear just where the > energy comes from, but it does not appear to be a limited resource. There is no reason whay we cannot know, or claim to know the source of the "free" energy, such as cohering quantum vaccum flux, or as in the case of Mr. Newman's device, conversion of mass to energy by processes hitherto unknown. > I am under the impresion that most people on this list would find this to > be an acceptable definition. Any attempt to make the definition more clear > would only invite more dissagreement. > > I am also under the impresion that Mr. Newman's motor does fall within the > realm which is described by this definition. Am I right? Not by the definition you present. Mr. Newman claims an elaborate theory of just how and why his device performs. Just how it performs may be debated, but not here on freenrg-l. > Of couse, if Mr. Newman dislikes the term "free energy", then he is not > required to use it, but at least the rest of us can. I agree. If we say "over unity" is the condition where a device remains in constant operation while delivering energy to an external load with no conventional energy source, then clearly we can describe that energy delivered to the load as being the "free energy" within the device-external load system. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 21:24:25 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:22:18 -0700 (PDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: JD Subject: Overunity Toy from the Sixties? Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:43:46 -0700 X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1 Conversation-Id: <3.0.32.19970530014442.00b19a30@mail.localaccess.com> Reply-To: JD Resent-Message-ID: <"3RLlB2.0.JP4.l59jp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4022 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I remember a little toy I had when I was a kid that was composed of a U-shaped steel wire frame and a red plastic wheel with a magnetic, pointed steel axle through it. The pointed ends of the axle rested on the rails of the frame. If you waved the toy u p and down, the wheel would spin and at the same time, travel down the frame. It would reach the end of the frame, then change directions for another circuit. If you held it vertically, it would climb the frame without a problem. Compressing the rails made the wheel travel faster, and moving them apart slowed them down. It wouldn't run forever, but it seemed that the wheel output more energy than the few waves of the arm put into the system. Does anyone remember this thing? What was it called? Was it in any sense an overunity device? JD X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 03:33:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:32:54 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:07:36 +1000 X-Sender: egel@main.murray.net.au To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: Download a free copy of the encyclopedia of free energy Resent-Message-ID: <"l5IRY.0.WH1.LRvip"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4012 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com At 05:00 PM 6/27/97 +0930, you wrote: >Hi All, > >for those that asked for a copy of my encyclopedia of free energy you can now down load a complete zip file of approx 1.44 meg in length from my new web page at http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135/ > > >Hoping to be of assistance Geoff X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 01:37:16 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:36:54 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 02:42:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: JD cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Overunity Toy from the Sixties? Resent-Message-ID: <"bvscd2.0.X41.bqCjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4026 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, JD wrote: > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:43:46 -0700 > From: JD > To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Overunity Toy from the Sixties? > Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:22:18 -0700 (PDT) > Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com > > > I remember a little toy I had when I was a kid that was composed of a U-shaped > steel wire frame and a red plastic wheel with a magnetic, pointed steel axle > through it. The pointed ends of the axle rested on the rails of the frame. If > you waved the toy up and down, the wheel would spin and at the same time, > travel down the frame. It would reach the end of the frame, then change > directions for another circuit. If you held it vertically, it would climb the > frame without a problem. Compressing the rails made the wheel travel faster, > and moving them apart slowed them down. It wouldn't run forever, but it seemed > that the wheel output more energy than the few waves of the arm put into the > system. Does anyone remember this thing? What was it called? Was it in any > sense an overunity device? > > JD > JD, Don't know it's retail name, but I too had one. NOT O\U!, but fun!.. IT, the red wheel used centrifical force like a gyro (high-speed) to climb on its radial 'spiked' magnets.. Actually it didn't /doesn't REVERSE directions it just got to the 'top' whic h was a bit wider than the length of the radial spikes and kept going over and down the other side. Arm movement supplied spin. If I recall, the small radial spikes had to turn about 100-300 times to go 1" to 3" or so.. *very neat to watch* "Was it in any sense an overunity device?" No, but I would liken it to a magnetic TOP spinning on a metal wire, Add another TOP (back to back) and bend the wire back on to itself (the part you held in your hand), and that guy should have made some good money! :) the o nly name that comes to mind, and I think the era was 1950's was "Space Satilite" with the Red Wheel being the satilite. se ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 08:32:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 08:32:16 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:57:58 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server NeoTech , List Server Newman , List Server Vortex Subject: Site Update ....... Ou Patents Resent-Message-ID: <"G55LD3.0.Zx2.-vIjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4027 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have updated my site with Fred Epps and my Ou patent list. Check it out. Got any more to add? Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 08:44:47 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 08:44:40 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 01:10:26 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fax ok? References: <970627202933_-1462057946@emout13.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"d0dZB.0.bO3.c5Jjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4028 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com HLafonte@aol.com wrote: > > Greg, Gene, Steve, did you get my fax today? I had one or two line > errors. > Butch Hi Butch, Got it ok. Thanks. I am looking at it now. Will get back. -- Best Regards, Greg Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/ X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 09:13:12 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 09:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 01:38:00 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex , Bill Beaty William Beaty Subject: Lost Mail Resent-Message-ID: <"OGF3U2.0.N-4.TWJjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4030 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I seem to be missing mail. I get posts which reference posts which I have never seen. Is anyone else having this problem? Bill, does your mail server (freenrg & vortex) retry when it get an error when sending out mail?? Feeling somewhat cut off. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Phone / PC Fax ...... 61 8 8270 2737 E-mail .............. gwatson@microtronics.com.au Home Page ........... Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 09:52:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 09:51:57 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 02:17:41 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Losses Resent-Message-ID: <"6px7V.0.YP7.h4Kjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4032 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have updated my site with the SMOT Energy Loss experiment. Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/smotlosses.html The losses seem to me to be much too large for eddy currents or B/H curve movements. I need a ferrite ball. Any ideas? Anyone else tried it? -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Phone / PC Fax ...... 61 8 8270 2737 E-mail .............. gwatson@microtronics.com.au Home Page ........... Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 08:48:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 08:48:29 -0700 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: JD Subject: Re: Overunity Toy from the Sixties? Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 10:11:30 -0700 X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1 Conversation-Id: Reply-To: JD Resent-Message-ID: <"ifffQ.0.8k3.B9Jjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4029 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > JD, > Don't know it's retail name, but I too had one. Thanks, Steve. You're right; it was a Space Satellite. Apparantly they are still around in some form. Wish I'd have kept it! JD NOT O\U!, but fun!.. IT, X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 10:18:39 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 10:18:31 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:18:10 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: Kromrey Converter To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"NkuWR1.0.Og.cTKjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4033 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id KAA04165 Bob Shannon wrote: >I have personally experimented with versions of the Kromrey converter >where pulses are applied to a rechargable battery. In this testing, I >did find that more energy was avaialble from the battery than is >normally delivered. But this 'extra' energy was not so large that it >could not be explained by the conventional process of shock excitation >of the batteries electrolyte. What is "shock excitation of the batteries electrolyte"? What does it do? How does it work? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 10:19:08 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 10:19:03 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:18:23 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: Bedini Motors To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"IRHOL2.0.Vh.6UKjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4034 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id KAA04290 Vicente > The original Bedini free energy generator (the first appears on his > page) only generates a high voltage repetitive peak, that applied to a > battery, "taps" free energy. This system is used on the Tesla Switch, > and other devices. I tested the Tesla Switch, before Jean Naudin and I > found the same result: don't work. It's very difficult to test because > the battery capacitance confuse the test. But, in all cases, if the > device is tested along a few hours, batteries ends discharged. What configuration of Tesla Switch did you test? I have seen several configurations of the Tesla Switch involving 4 batteries and 6 switches. One of the configurations that I have seen from Bedini appears to have very high battery current which can not be reduced by reducing the load. It seems like the only thing that limits the battery current is the voltage drop accross the switches and diodes and the internal resistance of the batteries and wires. Only a fraction of the battery current actually flows through the load, and the value of that fraction i s very uncertain. Is that the configuration that you tested? I also tested (without success) my own variety of the tesla switch, and posted a description of the device on this mail list back on the first of this month. At this time, it is still easy to find and view in text form (not yet compressed into a .ZIP) in the current month section on the free energy list archive web page. The subjets is Bedini Questions. Based on your understanding of how it is supposed to work: What is the battery voltage? What is the battery chemistry? What is the switching frequency? What is the battery capacity (Amp-Hours)? What level of battery current is supposed to produce the free energy effect for the given battery capacity? (Actually, I figure what really matters is the ratio of battery current over battery capacity, which produces a certain current density within the battery.) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 10:51:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 10:51:05 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:50:27 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: gwatson@microtronics.com.au, billb@eskimo.com Subject: Re : Lost Mail Resent-Message-ID: <"IdAmL3.0.ns1.7yKjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4035 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On 28/06/1997 18:18:02 , Greg Watson wrote : << Hi All, I seem to be missing mail. I get posts which reference posts which I have never seen. Is anyone else having this problem? Bill, does your mail server (freenrg & vortex) retry when it get an error when sending out mail?? Feeling somewhat cut off. Best Regards, Greg Watson >> Hi All, I have the same problem as Greg, LOST and DELAYED ( frequently 24 hours )...Emails......?? For whose want to send me some importants informations you may use the FEEDBACK topic in my web site at : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509@aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ WWPager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/747846 X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 11:33:58 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 11:33:32 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:32:49 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini Motors References: <199706281318_MC2-196A-58D@compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"TktIm2.0.h33.wZLjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4036 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph E Griffin wrote: > > Vicente > > > The original Bedini free energy generator (the first appears on his > > page) only generates a high voltage repetitive peak, that applied to a > > battery, "taps" free energy. This system is used on the Tesla Switch, > > and other devices. I tested the Tesla Switch, before Jean Naudin and I > > found the same result: don't work. It's very difficult to test because > > the battery capacitance confuse the test. But, in all cases, if the > > device is tested along a few hours, batteries ends discharged. > > What configuration of Tesla Switch did you test? > > I have seen several configurations of the Tesla Switch involving 4 > batteries and 6 switches. One of the configurations that I have seen from > Bedini appears to have very high battery current which can not be reduced > by reducing the load. It seems like the only thing that limits the battery > current is the voltage drop accross the switches and diodes and the > internal resistance of the batteries and wires. Only a fraction of the > battery current actually flows through the load, and the value of that > fraction is very uncertain. Is that the configuration that you tested? > > I also tested (without success) my own variety of the tesla switch, and > posted a description of the device on this mail list back on the first of > this month. At this time, it is still easy to find and view in text form > (not yet compressed into a .ZIP) in the current month section on the free > energy list archive web page. The subjets is Bedini Questions. > > Based on your understanding of how it is supposed to work: > What is the battery voltage? > What is the battery chemistry? > What is the switching frequency? > What is the battery capacity (Amp-Hours)? > What level of battery current is supposed to produce the free energy effect > for the given battery capacity? (Actually, I figure what really matters is > the ratio of battery current over battery capacity, which produces a > certain current density within the battery.) > Hi all Ok, I tested the four batteries configuration. All can see this device on my page at: http://www.ctv.es/USERS/vramos/home.htm Vicente X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 11:36:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 11:35:57 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:35:16 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: Evan Soule CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Bedini" motors References: Resent-Message-ID: <"vELMh1.0.b83.CcLjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4037 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Evan Soule wrote: > > >Evan Soule' wrote: > >> 13 years ago, Bedini's "discovery" was not his. It had already been > >Evan > >Thanks for your clarification. In Spain, anybody knows nothing about > >free energy or overunity devices. I don't would rest importance Joseph's > >work in all case. > >Vicente > > Dear Vicente, > > You are very welcome. Actually, Spain was one of the first countries to > issue Joseph Newman a patent for his technology. > > On a personal note: do you live near Barcelona? I have twice visited that > great city and loved both visits. Ah, how I recall with pleasure the wide > boulevards, the old city, the Art Nouveau architecture (Gaudi and others), > the splendid Park Guell, the Church of the Sagrada Familia, the Tibidaldo > Amusement Park perched high on a mountain as the streets descend to the > romantic flaming fountains .... yes, Barcelona is, in some ways, like New > Orleans (my home). I often like to tell people how I traveled on both the > BEST trains and the WORST trains in Spain: the 3rd class train trip from > the French border to Barcelona was an amazing experience .... and so was > the return, 1st class trip on the Talgo -- one of the finest trains in > Europe! > > Best regards, > > Evan Soule' I think I know these trains. I travelled once 400 Km on 3rd class, on a train with wood sits. It were a hard experience; 8 hours of travel... No, I'm not from Barcelona. I'm living on Castellón, at 350 Km from Barcelona, but I travel frecuently to Barcelona, where I have some family. The only notice I have on Spain about free energy discovery is from a man called Honorio Perez Picazzo. He told on a magazine that It have a device that "taps" free energy from the air. He has a letter from NASA, interested about his invention. But this d evice is a mistery. He doesn't want explain the working principle. Only reports the machine works with output fluctuations, but can arrive at 3Kw of triphasic current at 380V!!! I had a telephonic conversation with his brother. He told me Honorio is in USA, on a NASA laboratories. Do you have notice about this? Vicente X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 21:11:16 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:11:02 -0700 From: geoff@compcafe.co.uk (Geoff Greaves) Reply-To: geoff@compcafe.co.uk To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Overunity Toy from the Sixties? Date: 28 Jun 1997 18:39:21 GMT Organization: via Computer Cafes FC BBS Wales, UK Resent-Message-ID: <"xrW-T3.0.57.K1Ujp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4047 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com JD,jd2@flash.net writes: I remember a little toy I had when I was a kid that was composed of a U-shaped steel wire frame and a red plastic wheel with a magnetic, pointed steel axle through it. They're still available; we've got a couple that we got for the kids' stockings at Christmas. Great fun but no more overunity than a pendulum with friction. They only have "Made in Taiwan" on them. ---------------------------------------- >From Geoff Greaves: geoff@compcafe.co.uk ---------------------------------------- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 11:42:54 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 11:42:46 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:41:55 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: "Free Energy"? "Over-unity"? To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"j33AE3.0.7L3.aiLjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4038 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id LAA12096 Bob Shannon wrote: >There is no reason whay we cannot know, or claim to know the source of >the "free" energy, such as cohering quantum vaccum flux, or as in the >case of Mr. Newman's device, conversion of mass to energy by processes >hitherto unknown. It it true that some people (includeing Newman) claim to know where the enery comes from. But it is still quite debatable wether they are correct. That is why my definition includes an open acknolegment of the uncertainty of this point. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 12:39:23 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:39:03 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:38:24 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: Bedini Motors To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"GjKDf1.0.IR5.LXMjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4039 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id MAA16835 Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga wrote: >Ok, I tested the four batteries configuration. >All can see this device on my page at: >http://www.ctv.es/USERS/vramos/home.htm I looked at your web page and it looks the same as the one that Bedini has presented, where there is no control of the battery current, except that it looks like you have the two middle transistors backwards. Current must flow up through those transistors from collector to emitter, but you have set it up so current flows up from emitter to collector. Perahps the circuit survived because you were working at such a low voltage. You can see an alternative topology (with two more dioes) in my message dated June first entitled "Bedini Questions". I don't know if it would produce free energy, but at leat it would enable you to control the battery current by controling the load, and at least all the battery current would flow through the load so you can capture some of the energy being lost by the batteries. Do you have any information about what frequency this test should be done at? Do you have any information about what current level (given the size of the batteries) this test should be done at? How much current did you messure in the batteries? How much current did you messure in the load? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 12:45:31 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:45:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:47:56 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: "Free Energy"? "Over-unity"? Resent-Message-ID: <"mcUq63.0.6z3.TdMjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4040 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Recently I tried to define free energy to a an aquaintance by email as I >was seeking his help. I gave him the following definition, which stops just >short of claiming to be in violation of the laws of physics. > >A Free Energy device is a device whose output energy is greater that its >input energy plus loss of stored energy, at least as far as we can tell >using measurments which are based on conventional physics. Free Energy is >the net energy produced by such a device. It is not clear just where the >energy comes from, but it does not appear to be a limited resource. > >I am under the impresion that most people on this list would find this to >be an acceptable definition. Any attempt to make the definition more clear >would only invite more dissagreement. > >I am also under the impresion that Mr. Newman's motor does fall within the >realm which is described by this definition. Am I right? > >Of couse, if Mr. Newman dislikes the term "free energy", then he is not >required to use it, but at least the rest of us can. > >Ralph E. Griffin Dear Ralph, Thanks for your thoughful comments above. Actually, I would not say that Joe dislikes the term "free energy" --- it's just that he has never used it to describe his system and I believe he would agree with the view that it does not appear (to him) to be scientifically precise. I must confess that my mind returns to the example of the nuclear fission reactor. Is this an "over-unity" operation? Could the output energy derived from the nuclear fission reactor be, in any way, considered "free energy?" As you may know (and as Bob has pointed out), Joe believes that his technical process is not unlike the fission process in that it too represents a conversion of matter to energy --- albeit an electromagnetic conversion rather than via fission. Can he prove this? Well, one should ask, what constitutes proof? One possible proof would be a verification that the mass of copper conductor is diminishing. Dr. Hastings once speculated that due to the high conversion efficiency (which, he believed, w as near 100%), it might be a very long time before any appreciable mass loss could be detected even with the most sensitive atomic scale system. Of course, even without such proof that Joe's position that such an electromagnetic reaction is occurring doe s not mean one cannot (temporarily) operate on the assumption that it is and design accordingly unless one discovers differently. As you know, it wasn't until 1919 that Einstein's relativity was verified to others by the Ecliptic Expedition -- yet, during all those previous years Einstein's (in his opinion) _knew_ that this Theory was correct and 'built' his thinking upon that found ation of belief (paradigm). Joe's conclusion that such an electromagnetic conversion is taking place in his system is, for him, a logical series of thought processes which evolve from his (and Faraday's, and Maxwell's earlier) view that the energy within an (electro)magnetic field i s real, PHYSICAL energy --- that this energy consists of "matter in motion." And if this is the case, Joseph Newman concludes that these matter-in-motion, "spinning physical entities" emanate from the atoms of the system to which they belong --- be they in a pre-existing aligned form (as in a permanent magnet), or in a momentary aligned form (as in a conductor subjected to voltage). What I'm about to say is a speculation -- a hypothesis (certainly NOT a theory): but suppose, just suppose, that there are TWO concurrent systems simultaneously functioning/existing within the atom? Please permit me to make this rather crude analogy: s uppose that the structure of the atom is loosely analogous to the structure of the "human body"? By this I mean: the conventionally-viewed paradigm of atomic protons, neutrons, electron as they are "classically-related" represent -- like the human system -- the SKELETAL structure of the atom, and an ever-'flowing', dynamic torroidal system of tiny spinning entities (Joe's gyroscopic particles) are analogous to the BLOOD flow of the human system? And both such systems operate side-by-side within the confines of the atom. Now, in Joe's paradigm, ALL the entities comprising the atom -- electron, neutron, proton (and all the far smaller entities) are ultimately comprised of such 'fundamental' spinning (gyroscopic) 'particles'.....however, when such g.p.'s combine with one an other at various angles to physically/mechanically form the larger entities, i.e., the proton for instance, and such entites become the SKELETAL structure of the classical-viewed atom.....while unattached gyroscopic particles continue in motion through to rroidal configurations within the atom. When two physically adjacent atoms become aligned with one another, their inner, torroidal gyroscopic particles in each atom link-up with one another to create a torroridal flow OUTSIDE the boundaries of their original, respective two atomic domains. Ali gn a third, a fourth, a fifth, then thousands, then millions, billions of such atoms .... and the INNER gyroscopic particles previously and independently flowing within each separate atomic domain (which each retain their SKELETAL and 'classic' structure of proton, neutron, electron) expand outside of their original boundaries to seemingly and instantaneously generate a far larger torroidal flow of gyroscopic particles ---- a flow which is perceived by us as a "macroscopic" magnetic field about the perman ent magnet or the conductor. Of course, the shape and configuration of the dynamic torroid will be dependent upon the original configuration of the aligned atomic domains, e.g., rectangular, spherical, square, thin, thick, a conductor wire, a coil, etc.... One simple conclusion from the above is that --- when one sprinkles those iron filings on a piece of paper suspended over a rectangular, permanent magnet --- the resulting "visible" lines of force ("visible" via the positioning of the iron filings) is a M ACROSCOPIC, 2-dimensional view of the INNER configuration of the gyroscopic particles within any given atomic domain. In otherwords, such macrosopic lines of force -- which we can easily see -- is our 'glimpse' into the shape of the configuration of such gyroscopic particles on the atomic "BLOOD-FLOW" level (to re-apply the human body analogy) when such particles are flowing in a torroidal configuration within the confines of a SINGLE atomic domain. Going back to the original discussion above: Is this energy "free"? Well, if one means is it "free" in a financial-sense, I would say "no." Someone has to financially "pay" for the materials, e.g., the conductor, the rare earth magnets, bearing replacement, etc. And if one means is it "free" in a scientific-sense, I would also say "no," if one accepts the position that there is, over time, at whatever conversion efficiencies, a gradual (quanity) loss of "blood" flow (moving gyroscopic particles) from the summation of all aligned atomic domains. For me, the word "alignment" seems to be a key word in this entire process. What does "alignment" REALLY mean --- I mean, fundamentally mean in a MECHANICAL sense? And what "seems" so 'magic' about ALIGNMENT? I say 'magic' because, in one sense, it does superfically seem -- at least to me -- to be a bit "magical" that when at l east TWO atomic domains are 'aligned'... something happens: a "magnetic field" (whatever this is ultimately and fundamentally) is instantaneously created BEYOND the original domains of each separate atomic domain. I hope I've shed some light on this subject from Joe's perspective vis-a-vis the above statements/speculations. [I should add that I've not specifically shown the above postulations in context to Joe so I don't know if he would definitely agree, disagree with all or part of them, or add more...] The above is why -- I believe -- that Joe does not view some "etheral 'ether'" as participating in the aforementioned (electro)magnetic proceses.....the energies involved (in his paradigm) flow _from the atomic domains_ involved in the process. HOWEVER..... is there an interaction BETWEEN, for instance, (A) the gyroscopic particles comprising the hydrogen/oxygen atomic domains comprising the air that we breathe ..... (or comprising the "photons" traveling in deep space [presumably a virtual vacu um]) ..... AND (B) the torroidal gyroscopic systems comprising aligned atomic domains in a 'magnetic' configuration? Answer: I don't know. Joe may have his speculations along these lines.... IF there is, then one seemingly could say that as the gyroscopic particles are "depleted" via the operation of an (electro)magnetic system designed to extract such particles via an electromagnetic conversion of matter-to-energy (i.e., transfer the physica l positioning of such particles from one configuration about a magnetic system to output electrical/mechanical energies), then some (all?) of these gyroscopic particles lost from the configured/aligned (electro)magnetic system are replenished (at some rat e) from adjacent gyroscopic particles resident in, for instance, hydrogen/oxygen atoms of the atmosphere adjacent to the operating (electro)magnetic system. I would tend to question such a process because I would ask this question: where is the "alignment" between the atomic domains of the (electro)magnetic system (of the permanent magnetic or conductor coil) and the hydrogen and/or oxygen atoms? I do not se e any such 'alignment.' Therefore, I would conclude that such a transfer does not occur, and that, in consequence, there IS a net decrease in available gyroscopic particles from the (electro)magnetic system. Hence, viewed macroscopically, the subsequent output energy generated by the process is not obtained for "free." Perhaps this is why Joe expliticly terms his system as one which "Produces Greater External Output Than External Energy Input" since going beyond this explicit phraseology by calling it a "Free Energy" system represents a speculation or extrapolation. And Bob Shannon writes: snip-- >If we say "over unity" is the condition where a device remains in >constant operation while delivering energy to an external load with no >conventional energy source, then clearly we can describe that energy >delivered to the load >as being the "free energy" within the device-external load system. Thanks for your comments, Bob. It seems that one could possibly conclude from your comments, then, that the term "free energy" is a "fluid definition" --- in other words, the "free energy" system of today (viewed within the context of 'conventional energ y sources') may become the "non-free-energy" system of tomorrow via an expanded 'conventional energy source' paradigm. I am not implying that I necessarily disagree with your view, Bob, but I once heard an astrophysicist state that "the purpose and scope of science (organized knowledge) is the search for 'absolutes' in a universe of relative observations." I believe that this gentleman would say that MOST --- nearly ALL things --- consist of relative observations. But he would maintain that there are -- 'scattered here and there' -- a few "absolutes" .... and a purpose of science is to find such "absolutes" and use them as keys to solve the seemingly infinite puzzles of the universe. It was once stated that "the speed of light in a vacuum is an 'absolute' constant." Of course, one could also maintain that a condition of "absolute" is never actually 'permanently' reached --- but, perhaps, only asymptotically approached as our understa nding of the universe increases. Sincerely, Evan Soule' X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 14:01:49 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:01:35 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:58:51 -0500 From: n5qxd To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Greetings References: <199706281442_MC2-196C-794D@compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"5VrrN1.0.W-.kkNjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4041 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi all, My name is Jim and I am new to the group. Although I have been on the net for years, I just put my web page up last month. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1287/ (Some current devices are shown. In time many more will be reconstructed from notes for the web.) Briefly, I have tested free energy ideas for more then 20 years like I am sure you all have. It is obvious that I have not found the answer yet. My serious ideas center around magnets and static. The use of leverage and centrifugal force or large diameter flywheels are incorporated into each design. I have encountered the same problem with flywheels as I do magnets, I can only get out what I put in regardless of the size and shape. WHAT'S THE POINT: Wally Minto's wheel. If Minto's wheel will work, one could use a motor to turn the wheel from the perimeter and obtain the same results but the wheel will spin faster. The Minto wheel does not turn fast enough to generate usable power, with conventional generators. My Question: If the Wally wheel was geared up from the axle to a workable speed for a generator, wouldn't you just sacrifice torque for speed? I sincerely hope this does not sound stupid but this is a serious question for me. My math must be wrong concer ning gearing. If so, this is screwing up my designs. How large would the Wally wheel have to be to produce 2000 rpm at five horsepower if the freon cans applied 5 pounds of continuous force at the perimeter? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 14:57:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:57:41 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:54:21 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, John Schnurer Subject: Minto Resent-Message-ID: <"rHZtw1.0.8T2.KZOjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4042 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, n5qxd wrote: > Hi all, > My name is Jim and I am new to the group. Although I have been on the > net for years, I just put my web page up last month. > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1287/ Notes on Minto's wheel. > WHAT'S THE POINT: > Wally Minto's wheel. If Minto's wheel will work, one could use a motor > to turn the wheel from the perimeter and obtain the same results but the > wheel will spin faster. Minto's wheel works. It is a thermal engine.... it does not need a motor to turn it, just the sun. The Minto wheel does not turn fast enough to > generate usable power, with conventional generators. > > My Question: If the Wally wheel was geared up from the axle to a > workable speed for a generator, wouldn't you just sacrifice torque for > speed? The Minto design that I saw had 12 foot arms.... tremendous torque. This is easy to gear down to run standard generator. Although the rpm is different, I saw a 9 foot motor at 150 rpm a Rock of Ages granite quarry capable of lifting a 90 ton block.... I saw it lift 20, 30 and 40 ton blocks on several occasions. I sincerely hope this does not sound stupid but this is a > serious question for me. My math must be wrong concerning gearing. If > so, this is screwing up my designs. > > How large would the Wally wheel have to be to produce 2000 rpm at five > horsepower if the freon cans applied 5 pounds of continuous force at the > perimeter? > Forget using freon [I hope you are thinking to maybe only use the empty containers ... and not even that, if you can help it. I am not the greatest math type myself .. but: If you used 12 foot arms, 55 gallon oil drums, the solar to the water was good, the drums were covered with white terry to aid in heat lost by evaporation, the working fluid was alcohol/water under reduced pressure... you should easily get 5 hp put of it . Math guys: figure a nominal weight displacement of 10 to 50 lbs at the arm ends, 24 foot diameter would probably put the center of gravity at maybe 10 foot from axel. JHS X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 16:57:03 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 16:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 01:56:04 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini Motors References: <199706281538_MC2-1966-EDD2@compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"gCz0A3.0.SB4.mJQjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4043 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph E Griffin wrote: > > Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga wrote: > > >Ok, I tested the four batteries configuration. > >All can see this device on my page at: > >http://www.ctv.es/USERS/vramos/home.htm > > I looked at your web page and it looks the same as the one that Bedini has > presented, where there is no control of the battery current, except that it > looks like you have the two middle transistors backwards. Current must flow > up through those transistors from collector to emitter, but you have set it > up so current flows up from emitter to collector. Perahps the circuit > survived because you were working at such a low voltage. > > You can see an alternative topology (with two more dioes) in my message > dated June first entitled "Bedini Questions". I don't know if it would > produce free energy, but at leat it would enable you to control the battery > current by controling the load, and at least all the battery current would > flow through the load so you can capture some of the energy being lost by > the batteries. > > Do you have any information about what frequency this test should be done > at? > Do you have any information about what current level (given the size of the > batteries) this test should be done at? > How much current did you messure in the batteries? > How much current did you messure in the load? Ralph: Bedini recommended me test this device at 20Hz... But the power in the load was really poor. The maximum power through the load were at 1 Khz approx. It was only 200 mA... I don't understand the fix you see on scheme. Do you mean that collector-emiter are inverted or are inverted the pulse transformer? I'm sure the collector-emiter on the middle transistor are like the diagram... and the three transistors of each side works at same time, one side on the first half-cycle, an the other on the second half-cyle. This diagram is extracted form a hand-drawing scheme I saw once in a magazine... and efectively have four aditional diodes, two in each side, before the two diodes of each battery pole. I don't understand how John talk about a "high voltage spark" I think he uses a output transformer... Vicente X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 00:12:15 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 18:13:08 +1200 From: Robbie Rowntree Reply-To: rown@xtra.co.nz To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Mk 2 Beta 3 References: <199706270903.CAA20339@guilder.ucdavis.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"bN26y.0.wY1.cbBjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4025 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Dan Quickert wrote: > For those not using the N-guage track, I highly recommend it. Makes a big > difference. But it's very difficult for me to work with. One question I have > is: how the heck do you make those cuts to radius it, without mucking up the > delicate connections to the plastic sleepers? The minor amount of torquing > that happens when I hacksaw it tears the sleepers off. Maybe there are more > sturdy brands than what I have? a fine razor saw and mitre box work very well try http://www.towerhobbies.com/ or any model shop I am trying a plastic I on its side 11x6x 8 inside ,model railway thing very straight stays flat if you heat one side hold 4mm drill on radius bend up perfect exit bottom of ball just hits curved bottom track and springs it out attach with counter sunk s s screws its about 350 400 mm long cheap $2.50 nz about the same drag as N 90* turns on the flat tight as you like, email ed http://www.tiac.net/users/salemsp/ about balls as this maybe my problem 1\2" balls are all i can find hear thats 12.7mm magnets are 9x4x13 not 10x4x13 so cant seem to get out field with present setup Robbie SMOTed X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 19:05:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 19:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:02:30 -0500 From: n5qxd To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minto References: Resent-Message-ID: <"c_RKC.0.I17.5CSjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4044 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat, 28 Jun 1997 John Schnurer wrote: > Minto's wheel works. It is a thermal engine.... it does not > need > a motor to turn it, just the sun. > The Minto design that I saw had 12 foot arms.... tremendous > torque. > This is easy to gear down to run standard generator. Although the rpm > is > different, I saw a 9 foot motor at 150 rpm a Rock of Ages granite > quarry > capable of lifting a 90 ton block.... I saw it lift 20, 30 and 40 ton > blocks on several occasions. > > Forget using freon [I hope you are thinking to maybe only use > the > empty containers ... and not even that, if you can help it. > > I am not the greatest math type myself .. but: > > If you used 12 foot arms, 55 gallon oil drums, the solar to > the > water was good, the drums were covered with white terry to aid in heat > > lost by evaporation, the working fluid was alcohol/water under reduced > > pressure... you should easily get 5 hp put of it. > > Math guys: figure a nominal weight displacement of 10 to 50 > lbs > at the arm ends, 24 foot diameter would probably put the center of > gravity at maybe 10 foot from axel. > > JHS Thank you for your reply John, I am sorry the overall question was not asked properly. (A note on freon - The first wheel I saw of this nature used 2 full freon cans and 2 empty freon cans. The opposing cans were connected together by an automotive freon charge hose.) I will try to clarify the question: How big does the Minto wheel need to be to produce 5 horsepower at 2000 rpm. Not brake horsepower or stall horsepower or 5 horsepower at 1 rpm. This needs to be 5 horsepower at 2000 rpm without slowing the wheel. Thanks again for the responce; Jim X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 19:52:02 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 19:21:17 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minto Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 02:20:50 GMT Organization: Improving References: Resent-Message-ID: <"etwLP.0.pJ2.SQSjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4045 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:54:21 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote: [snip] > If you used 12 foot arms, 55 gallon oil drums, the solar to the >water was good, the drums were covered with white terry to aid in heat >lost by evaporation, the working fluid was alcohol/water under reduced >pressure... you should easily get 5 hp put of it. At 30 lb and 10 foot arms, 5 hp would require a rotation rate of 550 rpm. I think this is a bit much for a Minto wheel :). 1 rpm would yield a power of 1/100 hp. [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 20:20:57 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:20:49 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 23:17:30 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Re: Minto Resent-Message-ID: <"uDD-Q2.0.RD4.GITjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4046 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Dear FE, Jim and Robin, So the fluid push has to be upped ..... I was reasonably sure the wheel turned at 5 to 10 rpm..... and it does not seem unlikely to be able to get 50 to 70 pounds on the arms at 5 rpm. so we are up to what? 1/20 hp? What is that in watt hours? Or you need 100 wheels ..... or 30 better wheels. J PS: Jim.... are we running a house? J On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:54:21 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote: > [snip] > > If you used 12 foot arms, 55 gallon oil drums, the solar to the > >water was good, the drums were covered with white terry to aid in heat > >lost by evaporation, the working fluid was alcohol/water under reduced > >pressure... you should easily get 5 hp put of it. > > At 30 lb and 10 foot arms, 5 hp would require a rotation rate of 550 > rpm. I think this is a bit much for a Minto wheel :). > 1 rpm would yield a power of 1/100 hp. > [snip] > Robin van Spaandonk > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on > temperature. > "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." > PS - no SPAM thanks! > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 21:50:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:50:38 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 23:48:13 -0500 From: n5qxd To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minto References: Resent-Message-ID: <"8wh-p2.0.kv1.TcUjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4050 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com John Schnurer wrote: > Dear FE, Jim and Robin, > > So the fluid push has to be upped ..... I was reasonably sure > > > PS: Jim.... are we running a house? > > J You are correct! This is the idea, although I would be happy to just run my air conditioner. I have been trying {and failing} for 20 years. Hundreds of motors, flywheels, static motors, different designs, ratios, magnets, metals etc. It is always the same. I only get out just about what I put in. To be honest, if the Wally wheel did produce like assumed, I would let the power company supply the current for the perimeter drive motor and I would let the Wally wheel generate the power needed for the house. Please understand I do NOT mean any disrespect for Mr. Minto. I respect and admire his idea and what he has done. I wish I had thought of it first. I admire simple. I thank you again for your reply. I am very serious about zpe, free energy or anything that will reduce my power demand. If it looks good, I will try it. I thank goodness for the WWW. For 18 years they said I was crazy, now they just say "Hmmm, he's one o f them.." X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 22:10:14 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 22:10:53 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 01:09:24 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Update on " Big Y " Resent-Message-ID: <"tLAWY3.0.G16.RvUjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4051 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Will have my theory of overunity in the " Big Y " ready by tomorrow morning. It's 12:OO midnight now, goodnight world. (or maybe worlds?) Butch X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 21:15:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:15:34 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:12:45 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Kromrey Converter References: <199706281318_MC2-196A-58B@compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"8YFHH1.0.lM.b5Ujp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4048 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph E Griffin wrote: > What is "shock excitation of the batteries electrolyte"? > What does it do? > How does it work? Shock excitation is a phenomena where rapid pulses break down the electrolyte of a battery and liberate charge carring ions that had otherwise been chemically bound, and unavaiable for chemical reaction. This process can cause batteries that appear to be nearly dead to deliver significant ammounts of energy well past what should have been their expected capacity. Unfortunatly, this process is not reversable, that is it is dammaging to the battery and greatly reduces its normal life expectancy. The source of this 'excess' energy is complex conventional chemical reactions, and it is not an over unity process. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 21:29:21 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:26:16 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bedini Motors References: <199706281538_MC2-1966-EDD2@compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"UDQHn2.0.XD5.5JUjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4049 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph E Griffin wrote: > You can see an alternative topology (with two more dioes) in my message > dated June first entitled "Bedini Questions". I don't know if it would > produce free energy, but at leat it would enable you to control the battery > current by controling the load, and at least all the battery current would > flow through the load so you can capture some of the energy being lost by > the batteries. > > Do you have any information about what frequency this test should be done > at? > Do you have any information about what current level (given the size of the > batteries) this test should be done at? > How much current did you messure in the batteries? > How much current did you messure in the load? In my tinkering with Brant-Tesla switches, maximum 'strangness' (possible excess energy delivered from the batteries) happens when the switching frequancy is within a range that causes the batteries to 'ring' at an internally resonant frequancy. This frequancy varies to some degree from battery to battery, and also varies as the batteries age. I also found that is rare for the batteries to all remain in similar conditions, and modifications that permit the timing of the switching for each battery to be varied to correct this condition are helpful. But just as with the kromrey converters, I have not seem evidence for any 'excess' energy that could not be explained by the process of shock excitation alone. Because the batteries take a pounding in these applications, and soon fail, I think that shock excitation fully explains these devices operation. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 03:13:43 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 03:13:37 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 06:13:03 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: Bedini Motors To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"3G55a.0.8e2.FLZjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4053 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id DAA05536 Vicente >Bedini recommended me test this device at 20Hz... But the power in the >load was really poor. The maximum power through the load were at 1 Khz >approx. It was only 200 mA... Thanks. That is the kind of infomation I have been looking for. I can see why a capacitively coupled load would draw almost no current at such low frequencies. Was that 200mA at 1Khz (not at 20Hz) ? >I don't understand the fix you see on scheme. Do you mean that >collector-emiter are inverted or are inverted the pulse transformer? >I'm sure the collector-emiter on the middle transistor are like the >diagram... and the three transistors of each side works at same time, >one side on the first half-cycle, an the other on the second half-cyle. The base drive transformer apears to be hooked up just fine. It is the collector-emiter connection on the middle transistor that I am talking about. When the transistor is on, the two batteries are connected in series and they are discharging. The other t wo batteries on the other side (where the middle transistor is off) are connected in parrallel and they are charging with half as much current. To enable a discharge of the two batteries in series, the current must flow UP from the + terminal of the lower battery to the - terminal of the upper battery. Normally current flows from the collector to the emiter of an NPN transistor. So the collector should connect to the + terminal of the lower battery, and the emitter should connect to the - terminal of the upper battery. But your diagram shows it the other way arround. Be careful if you flip it arround, you may find that it works TOO well. You may find that there is too much battery current. This is bad for the batteries and bad for the transistors. The load current is not a good indication of the battery current. You n eed to measure them both. The other diagram that I refered to in a previous message can resolve this problem. Also, you may have trouble with your base drive transformers. You need diodes accross the primary of the transformers like those that are shown on Bedini's web page. Otherwise, you are trying to force reverse current through the base-emitter junction of t he transistor which is supposed to be off. That is hard on the transistors and it requires more voltage or it tends to reduce the base drive to the transistors that you are trying to turn on, untill the base drive transformers (of the off transistors) sat urate, and all of the sudden the base drive current (of the on transistors) goes way up. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 03:17:19 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 03:14:04 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 06:13:05 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: Bedini Motors To: Free Energy List Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"j9Tc81.0.9g2.gLZjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4054 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id DAA05653 Bob Shannon wrote: >In my tinkering with Brant-Tesla switches, maximum 'strangness' >(possible excess energy delivered from the batteries) happens when the >switching frequancy is within a range that causes the batteries to >'ring' at an internally resonant frequancy. > >This frequancy varies to some degree from battery to battery, and also >varies as the batteries age. What frequency did you see it ring at? Does the voltage really go up and then back down again during the charging half cycle? Does the voltage really go down and then back up again during the discharging half cycle? I saw something like that in my tests but it lasted no more than half a micro second (however long it took to switch the direction of current flowing through the battery), and I figured it was due to the inductance of the connection to the battery. >Shock excitation is a phenomena where rapid pulses break down the >electrolyte of a battery and liberate charge carring ions that had >otherwise been chemically bound, and unavaiable for chemical reaction. > >This process can cause batteries that appear to be nearly dead to >deliver significant ammounts of energy well past what should have been >their expected capacity. > >Unfortunatly, this process is not reversable, that is it is dammaging to >the battery and greatly reduces its normal life expectancy. > >The source of this 'excess' energy is complex conventional chemical >reactions, and it is not an over unity process. Thanks for the information. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 03:13:42 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 03:13:31 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 06:13:09 -0400 From: Ralph E Griffin Subject: Re: "Free Energy"? "Over-unity"? To: "INTERNET:freenrg-l@eskimo.com" Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"xTGx41.0.fd2.9LZjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4052 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id DAA05534 Evan Soule' writes: >Is this energy "free"? Well, if one means is it "free" in a >financial-sense, I would say "no." Someone has to financially "pay" for >the materials, e.g., the conductor, the rare earth magnets, bearing >replacement, etc. And if one means is it "free" in a scientific-sense, >I would also say "no," if one accepts the position that there is, over >time, at whatever conversion efficiencies, a gradual (quanity) loss of >"blood" flow (moving gyroscopic particles) from the summation of all >aligned atomic domains. > > > >And Bob Shannon writes: >snip-- >>If we say "over unity" is the condition where a device remains in >>constant operation while delivering energy to an external load with no >>conventional energy source, then clearly we can describe that energy >>delivered to the load >>as being the "free energy" within the device-external load system. > >Thanks for your comments, Bob. It seems that one could possibly >conclude from your comments, then, that the term "free energy" is a >"fluid definition" --- in other words, the "free energy" system of today >(viewed within the context of 'conventional energy sources') may become >the "non-free-energy" system of tomorrow via an expanded 'conventional >energy source' paradigm. Yes. That is also what I was getting at with my definition of free energy. It is free in a CONVENTIONAL SCIENTIFIC sense. Of course, it is not free in a monetary sence, and of course, it will not be free in a scientific sense when the commonly accepted scientific theory changes to encompass this new technology. Perhaps the name "free energy" will stick due to purely linguistic reasons. It is very hard to make people change the name they use for something after it has become a commonly accepted name. >Joe's conclusion that such an electromagnetic conversion is taking place >in his system is, for him, a logical series of thought processes which >evolve from his (and Faraday's, and Maxwell's earlier) view that the >energy within an (electro)magnetic field is real, PHYSICAL energy --- >that this energy consists of "matter in motion." And if this is the >case, Joseph Newman concludes that these matter-in-motion, "spinning >physical entities" emanate from the atoms of the system to which they >belong --- be they in a pre-existing aligned form (as in a permanent >magnet), or in a momentary aligned form (as in a conductor subjected to >voltage). I can see why Mr. Newnam does not use the term free energy. For him, the use of such a term would be contrary to his theory which explains where the energy comes from. >I must confess that my mind returns to the example of the nuclear >fission reactor. Is this an "over-unity" operation? Conventional (or commonly accepted science) now encompasses nuclear physics, so such a device is not a free energy device according to the definition being discussed here. >suppose, that there are TWO concurrent systems simultaneously >functioning/existing within the atom? Please permit me to make this >rather crude analogy: suppose that the structure of the atom is loosely >analogous to the structure of the "human body"? By this I mean: the >conventionally-viewed paradigm of atomic protons, neutrons, electron as >they are "classically-related" represent -- like the human system -- the >SKELETAL structure of the atom, and an ever-'flowing', dynamic torroidal >system of tiny spinning entities (Joe's gyroscopic particles) are >analogous to the BLOOD flow of the human system? This analogy is good enough for me to point out what bothers me about Mr. Newman's theory. Conventional science has pretty well proven that matter is composed of atoms, and atoms are the smallest posable quality of a material such as copper which can retain the properties of that material. If you subdivide a copper atom, you do n't have copper any more. So if mater is being converted into energy, then there are only two posible results that come to mind: 1) Whole atoms are being 100% converted into pure energy. This would be a fairly big chuck of energy for the minimum chuck size. The energy chunk size would be so large that it should not be too difficult to count the chucks individually. I see no indicat ion that this has been done or could be done. 2) Part of the atoms is converted into energy and part of the atom remains. Now to use your analogy, the body is loosing blood, but not bone. If that is what is happening, then there should be a detectable change in the material properties of the copper (like a body getting more sluggish when it is low on blood). Such a change in properties should be much easier to detect than a loss of weight. It seems like it would have to be a new dimension in material properties. OK, maybe it would not be so easy to detect only because we don't know exactly what we are looking for, but surely it would have some kind of side effect that would be noticable. Mr Newman's theory completely bypasses this problem by treating matter as if it were infinatly subdividable. (not good) As you pointer out, another posibility is that the material that is lost, is somehow restored from the surounding environment, but now we are departing from the realm Mr. Newman's theory. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 06:54:15 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 06:54:08 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:53:15 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com CC: ralph_griffin@compuserve.com Subject: Scalar battery charger Resent-Message-ID: <"4Tch1.0.HT6._Zcjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4055 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph I updated my page correcting the diagram. Thanks Once I built the saclar battery charger, using a relay (10A, 3 poles) and a 12V 6'5 A/h battery (dry gel). The two capacitor were 10000uF 25V. The load was a H4 bulb (12V 55W). I placed 100nF 400V caps between contacts to prevent sparks, but one hour after, the relay were damaged. Battery finished lower than at the beginning of test. Relay were drived by an external power source. Frecuency was 35 Hz. Current through load was 4A. At any time, battery voltage went up. I read your old e-mail about this. I report you John always uses bifilar or trifilar coils. Maybe the flyback charger needs one. He never explain if the coils are bifilar, trifilar, etc. Vicente X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 11:52:45 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:52:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:58:01 -0400 From: B25B@LCIA.COM (RON BRENNEN) Reply-To: B25B@LCIA.COM To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Newman motor Resent-Message-ID: <"8kUoL2.0.AK7.oxgjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4057 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com To Evan Soule: Evan, I understand Newman is suing Min-Kota for infringing on his patents. I understand K Mart is selling trolling motors which are infringing. Could you tell us the model number of this motor so we can check it out? If it does show OU it can only bolster Newman's case in court. Ron Brennen X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 11:16:42 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:16:21 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 13:19:41 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: "Free Energy"? "Over-unity"? Resent-Message-ID: <"EUzgA2.0.mz5.qPgjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4056 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >Evan Soule' writes: snip--> >>suppose, that there are TWO concurrent systems simultaneously >>functioning/existing within the atom? Please permit me to make this >>rather crude analogy: suppose that the structure of the atom is loosely >>analogous to the structure of the "human body"? By this I mean: the >>conventionally-viewed paradigm of atomic protons, neutrons, electron as >>they are "classically-related" represent -- like the human system -- the >>SKELETAL structure of the atom, and an ever-'flowing', dynamic torroidal >>system of tiny spinning entities (Joe's gyroscopic particles) are >>analogous to the BLOOD flow of the human system? > >This analogy is good enough for me to point out what bothers me about Mr. >Newman's theory. Conventional science has pretty well proven that matter is >composed of atoms, and atoms are the smallest posable quality of a material >such as copper which can retain the properties of that material. If you >subdivide a copper atom, you don't have copper any more. > >So if mater is being converted into energy, then there are only two posible >results that come to mind: > >1) Whole atoms are being 100% converted into pure energy. This would be a >fairly big chuck of energy for the minimum chuck size. The energy chunk >size would be so large that it should not be too difficult to count the >chucks individually. I see no indication that this has been done or could >be done. > >2) Part of the atoms is converted into energy and part of the atom remains. >Now to use your analogy, the body is loosing blood, but not bone. If that >is what is happening, then there should be a detectable change in the >material properties of the copper (like a body getting more sluggish when >it is low on blood). Such a change in properties should be much easier to >detect than a loss of weight. It seems like it would have to be a new >dimension in material properties. OK, maybe it would not be so easy to >detect only because we don't know exactly what we are looking for, but >surely it would have some kind of side effect that would be noticable. > >Mr Newman's theory completely bypasses this problem by treating matter as >if it were infinatly subdividable. (not good) > >As you pointer out, another posibility is that the material that is lost, >is somehow restored from the surounding environment, but now we are >departing from the realm Mr. Newman's theory. > >Ralph E. Griffin Dear Ralph, Thanks for your comments above -- I enjoyed reading them. And I agree with your comments regarding "conventional science" as it affects our interpretation/labeling of phenomena at any given time. Re the "blood/bone" or "system/structure" analogy of the "atom" described above: it has been postulated that the conversion efficiency of the system approaches or is at 100%. As such, this would obviously have an important effect upon the RATE of convers ion. In other words, to continue the "body" analogy, if the rate of conversion (efficiency) is very high, it may well be a considerable length of time before any measurable amount of 'blood' transfer and/or the effect upon the structure of the 'body' as a whole --- can be detected. And if all of the macroscopically-flowing gyroscopic particles are freely flowing between individually-aligned atomic domains in some type of elaborate torroidal system, this inter-flow of such particles could considerably ex tend the operational life of the system/structure. A possibly-related question: what is happening on an atomic (or even sub-atomic) level in a tungsten filament in a typical incandescent light bulb? Obviously the tight spiral of the filament is being subjected to considerable "heat" over time. What is the atomic/sub-atomic mechanical mechanism which occurs at some point in time that causes the filament (at some position in the spiral) to "break?" [ I would also wonder what, if any, effect the high melting point of tungsten (3,387 degrees C) and high tensile strength (600,000 lb. per square inch) might have upon this process? I also find it interesting that during the process of producing pure tungs tic acid (for subsequent filament production), an _electric current_ is passed through the product until it almost melts. It would seem that the processing imparts into the tungsten some distinctive atomic/sub-atomic properties.] Someone also pointed out to me that on the back of certain types of circuit boards where there is copper used as a electrical connector that, over time, the copper (amalgam?) has appeared to "evaporate" to some extent. If so, is this an oxidation process or something else? Yes Ralph -- I would agree that some type of test (perhaps utilizing an atomic scale) to verify mass loss in the system/structure would be very valuable. But irrespective of how long this might take for the process to be effectively measured, the resourc es (at this time) to not permit such a measurement. But I would agree that such a measurement would indeed enable others to view Joe's Theory also as a Theory and not as a Hypothesis. Best regards, Evan Soule' X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 14:47:35 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:47:21 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [205.184.158.67] From: "Ian Webb" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT - where does the effect come from? Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:46:56 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"uGdb53.0.na4.dVjjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4058 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Has anyone measured a SMOT ramp's magnet strength before and after use? Was there any appreciable difference in field strength after a large number of trials? If the field strength is not decreasing, is there a cooling effect or other apparent reduction of entropy around the device? --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 15:41:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:40:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:40:33 -0400 (EDT) From: George Elston To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-digest@eskimo.com Subject: SMOT and Brachistochrone curve Resent-Message-ID: <"zACWL3.0.ZM6.jHkjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4059 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I have not tried the SMOT but have been following it's progress and have been wondering about optimizing the path of the ball. In standard Neutonian physics one would think that the most optomized pathfor acceleration under gravity would be a straight l ine, this however is not true, the path for greatest acceleration is a curve called a brachistochrone. Could it be possible to optomize the path and increase the acceleration of the ball bearing. Information on the math of the brachistochrone curve is ava liable at http://cyclone.cs.clemson.edu/~jruss/cpsc881/brach/brach.html George gelston@gate.net X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 19:01:15 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:00:57 -0700 From: Keasy@aol.com Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:00:20 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-digest@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT and Brachistochrone curve Resent-Message-ID: <"vPM4M1.0.lU5.NDnjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4060 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but with the SMOT the issue is how much energy is available at the end of a cycle (or part of a cycle), not how much time is needed for the ball to get there. In standard theory both the gravitational and magnetic fiel ds are conservative, which means the potential energy between two points depends only upon the location of the points, not the path taken between them. Obviously, other considerations are involved; for the SMOT minimization of frictional losses is important. For that a straight line (rail) is probably the best bet. Getting the ball from point A to point B fastest, while interesting, would not be ex pected to improve overunity performance. Ken Keasy@aol.com X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 21:10:40 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:08:34 -0500 (CDT) From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Free Energy"? "Over-unity"? Reply-To: w9sz@prairienet.org Resent-Message-ID: <"AYsII2.0.Uv2.j6pjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4061 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > >>Recently I tried to define free energy to a an aquaintance by email as I >>was seeking his help. I gave him the following definition, which stops just >>short of claiming to be in violation of the laws of physics. >> >>A Free Energy device is a device whose output energy is greater that its >>input energy plus loss of stored energy, at least as far as we can tell >>using measurments which are based on conventional physics. Free Energy is >>the net energy produced by such a device. It is not clear just where the >>energy comes from, but it does not appear to be a limited resource. >> >>I am under the impresion that most people on this list would find this to >>be an acceptable definition. Any attempt to make the definition more clear >>would only invite more dissagreement. >> >>I am also under the impresion that Mr. Newman's motor does fall within the >>realm which is described by this definition. Am I right? >> >>Of couse, if Mr. Newman dislikes the term "free energy", then he is not >>required to use it, but at least the rest of us can. >> >>Ralph E. Griffin > >Dear Ralph, > >Thanks for your thoughful comments above. Actually, I would not say that >Joe dislikes the term "free energy" --- it's just that he has never used it >to describe his system and I believe he would agree with the view that it >does not appear (to him) to be scientifically precise. I must confess that >my mind returns to the example of the nuclear fission reactor. Is this an >"over-unity" operation? Could the output energy derived from the nuclear >fission reactor be, in any way, considered "free energy?" As you may know >(and as Bob has pointed out), Joe believes that his technical process is >not unlike the fission process in that it too represents a conversion of >matter to energy --- albeit an electromagnetic conversion rather than via >fission. > I prefer the term used by some, "space energy", myself. Just as matter is condensed energy, so is energy condensed space. All we are trying to do is make space condense in ways we can find useful. Zack -- X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 16:34:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:34:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:29:34 -1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Possible breakthrough Resent-Message-ID: <"6Ce7a3.0.uj5.3A4kp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4071 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Butch - RE: "LaFonte Motor/Generator" It will take actual measurement to check this out. Playing with it on the desktop gave me the impression that the 'pullaway' of the magnet mitigating the force of the other two was really large in comparison to the 3-way attraction and the subsequent 2-wa y repulsion. I'd guess from the feel of it that they balance out as usual. In the absence of any real measurement to the contrary, there's no reason for me to believe that this configuration presents an extraordinary exception to the rule that the the ene rgy expended pulling magnets apart equals the energy gained having them pull together. Some thoughts and suggestions: One problem with measurement is that you need to sum three rather small varying forces over a small distance. Maybe some mechanical linkages like pivoted rods would extend the distance an element would have to travel for eas ier measurements. Of course, the real goal is simply to see if the thing is over-unity. That might be accomplished by having the three magnets attached to the ends of sliding or pivoting rods, and have the rods actuated by having a follower wheel attached to the opposite ends riding on a revolving disc with cam-like tracks or grooves on it. Any thrust or energy gain generated by the 3 magnets pulling together or the 2 pushing apart would be delivered to the disc through the curved tracks, and momentum fro m rotating mass on the disc (flywheel) would serve to accumulate energy to pull the one magnet away and overcome friction. If the system is well OU, the thing would run on its own. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 16:36:15 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:36:01 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: <199706231027.DAA18646@mx1.eskimo.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:34:39 -1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT and Brachistochrone curve Resent-Message-ID: <"BhstM2.0.1t1.WB4kp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4072 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com George - > I have not tried the SMOT but have been following > it's progress and have been wondering about > optimizing the path of the ball. In standard > Neutonian physics one would think that the most > optomized pathfor acceleration under gravity would > be a straight line, this however is not true, the > path for greatest acceleration is a curve called a > brachistochrone. Could it be possible to optomize > the path and increase the acceleration of the ball > bearing. Information on the math of the > brachistochrone curve is avaliable at > http://cyclone.cs.clemson.edu/~jruss/cpsc881/brach/brach.html Yeah, and if nothing else you could sure impress people by knowing what the hell a brachistochrone curve is! I bet it could help though, since there seems to be momentum, and therefore energy, being wasted when the ball seems to strain against the fields and decelerates. We must be losing something there. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 23:22:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:22:59 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minto Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:21:38 GMT Organization: Improving References: Resent-Message-ID: <"x9flM3.0.pl5.x2rjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4062 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 23:17:30 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote: > > > Dear FE, Jim and Robin, > > So the fluid push has to be upped ..... I was reasonably sure >the wheel turned at 5 to 10 rpm..... and it does not seem unlikely to be >able to get 50 to 70 pounds on the arms at 5 rpm. > > so we are up to what? 1/20 hp? What is that in watt hours? > Or you need 100 wheels ..... or 30 better wheels. > > J > > PS: Jim.... are we running a house? > [snip] You can also tackle this from a different point of view. The energy is basically solar, so the power available is limited initially by the area of the drums exposed to the sun (when near the ground), then the figure you get from that is reduced by a facto r of (Thigh-Tlow)/Thigh, with temperatures expressed in K. And this is the *best* you can do. There will doubtless be other loss factors as well, e.g. much solar energy will be reflected, the high drums will also soak some up, etc. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 00:09:55 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:09:26 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:34:56 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server NeoTech , List Server Newman , List Server Vortex Subject: Space Drives Resent-Message-ID: <"no-OD1.0.J2.akrjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4063 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi All, I have updated my OU patent list to link with the Space Drives Archive. If you are into reactionless drives, this is the BEST list I have ever seen. I have always had a soft spot for these units as I was very heavy into Analog, John Campbell, and the Dean Drive many years ago. Even built one. I couldn't get it to lift off though. Then I spent the time to understand why it didn't work as claimed. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Phone / PC Fax ...... 61 8 8270 2737 E-mail .............. gwatson@microtronics.com.au Home Page ........... Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 05:01:19 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 05:01:12 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:57:50 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Minto Resent-Message-ID: <"YVYyQ2.0.5s4.70wjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4064 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Dear Folks, The Minto wheel works by water being warm and this boils th working fluid. I further suggested putting wick material on the 'cans' to cool thme from heat lost through evaporation. J On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 23:17:30 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote: > > > > > > > Dear FE, Jim and Robin, > > > > So the fluid push has to be upped ..... I was reasonably sure > >the wheel turned at 5 to 10 rpm..... and it does not seem unlikely to be > >able to get 50 to 70 pounds on the arms at 5 rpm. > > > > so we are up to what? 1/20 hp? What is that in watt hours? > > Or you need 100 wheels ..... or 30 better wheels. > > > > J > > > > PS: Jim.... are we running a house? > > > [snip] > You can also tackle this from a different point of view. The energy is > basically solar, so the power available is limited initially by the > area of the drums exposed to the sun (when near the ground), then the > figure you get from that is reduced by a factor of (Thigh-Tlow)/Thigh, > with temperatures expressed in K. And this is the *best* you can do. > There will doubtless be other loss factors as well, e.g. much solar > energy will be reflected, the high drums will also soak some up, etc. > > > Robin van Spaandonk > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on > temperature. > "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." > PS - no SPAM thanks! > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 05:32:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 05:32:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:31:31 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: ralph_griffin@compuserve.com CC: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Tesla Switch Resent-Message-ID: <"YOE1I2.0.kd5.LTwjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4065 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Ralph Which type waveform did you use to drive your Tesla Switch (four batteries). Maybe the problem is here. Vicente X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 07:25:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:32:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Jason Aldo To: Bob Shannon Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Kromrey Converter Resent-Message-ID: <"i6onC2.0.kW6.M8yjp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4066 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Bob Shannon wrote: > Ralph E Griffin wrote: > > > > > What is "shock excitation of the batteries electrolyte"? > > What does it do? > > How does it work? > > Shock excitation is a phenomena where rapid pulses break down the > electrolyte of a battery and liberate charge carring ions that had > otherwise been chemically bound, and unavaiable for chemical reaction. > > This process can cause batteries that appear to be nearly dead to > deliver significant ammounts of energy well past what should have been > their expected > capacity. > > Unfortunatly, this process is not reversable, that is it is dammaging to > the battery and greatly reduces its normal life expectancy. > > The source of this 'excess' energy is complex conventional chemical > reactions, and it is not an over unity process. > > Could not the process of shock wave excitiation be somehow used to extract energy from electrolytes? Ordinary sea water is an abundant electrolyte I don't know anything about thiis process. Does the battery get charged at the same time shock excitation oc curs? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 08:25:46 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:25:36 -0700 From: "Wes Crosiar" To: Subject: Re: Minto Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:30:03 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"23BbV.0.C73.l_yjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4067 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I played with the minto wheel several years ago. It is possible to extract a small amount of energy with them. The problem begins when you build larger diameter wheels. It takes energy to push the fluid higher, so the larger you build the wheel the slower it will revolve. If you use freon with a four to six foot diameter wheel you will be lucky to achieve one RPM. The only way to achieve decent power levels is to build shorter heavier wheels. The Mother Earth News built a large unit several years ago and also a smaller unit. If you want to see the results they had, go to the library and get the mother earth index and look it up [most of the libraries have all the back issues of the Mother Earth News]. They have several articles on Mintos wheel as well as the ones that they built. They gave up after finding out that the larger diameter wheel was lucky to turn 1/3 RPM [or something like that]. There was research done in the late 1800's and early 1900's with heat engines. You can find out about some of these in the encyclopedia, you may have to check several. The key words are Wilsie and Boyle, Schuman and Carnot cycle. This should be a starti ng place. One of the engines that they built using low pressure steam, ran a pump that pumped 6000 gallons of water per minute. The way most of these engines were built went something like this. A flat plate collector heats a liquid with a low boiling point such as methyl chloride, sulpher dioxide or freon. This liquid is pumped with a small pump into the flat plate collector which is then heated by the ambient air or the sun. This causes it to rapidly expand. The expanded gas then runs a motor [they used a diaphram motor],a Tesla turbine should work well. On exiting the motor it goes into a condenser [water pumped from a well works well for rapid cooling]. This converts the vapor back into a l iquid which is then recycled with the pump and the process is repeated. If I remember correctly as little as 200 square feet of collector would produce three horsepower. Most of the research done on this was in the early 1900's so the reference material you seek will be from this era. There is an excellent book on this that many libraries have on these motors. If anyone is interested I will go to the library and make su re of the name and author and post here. THANKS WES X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 09:22:41 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:19:23 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:16:30 -0700 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon@tiac.net Organization: Fair at best To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Kromrey Converter References: Resent-Message-ID: <"BInP-2.0.4d5.9ozjp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4068 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Peter Jason Aldo wrote: > Could not the process of shock wave excitiation be somehow used to extract > energy from electrolytes? Ordinary sea water is an abundant electrolyte > I don't know anything about thiis process. Does the battery get charged at > the same time shock excitation occurs? You could produce energy from sea water as an electrolyte, but this consumes a great deal of battery plate material for the ammount of energy produced. This would also produce a good deal of chemical waste as well. Shock excitation could take be used to deliver additional energy from these sea water batteries, but it also accelerates the depleation of the battery plates and electrolyte. Again, its a fully conventional process. I dont think that chemical batteries are a viable energy source for larger scale energy production. Many batteries take more energy to produce than they deliver. There is also an energy cost in the safe disposal of exausted cells that must be accouted for. If a device produced more of the same kind of energy I pay for than it uses in its operation, you could replace the rechargable batteries with a bank of capacitors and you dont need batteries at all. If for some reason you must use the batteries for the device to operate, as in the case of the Brandt-Tesla-Switch, Kromrey converter or other similar devices, you are in my opinion simply doomed. Batteries die, they cost energy to produce and dispose of , and any excess energy production is likley due to the fully conventional chemical phenomena. If your device returns more energy than is drew from the battery, use a capacitor bank. If the device 'produces' this excess energy in the battery itself, forget it, the batteries will eventually fail. If your device is claimed to return more energy to the battery than is draws, but will not run from capacitors, then its not putting the same kind of energy back into the capacitors its drawing out of the capacitors. Thats not the kind of energy I'm interested in paying for. We must remember that its far more efficient to store energy by charging a capacitor than by charging a battery. X-From_: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 12:30:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:28:49 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:28:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: No more SMOTTing for a while. Resent-Message-ID: <"3VUdC.0.Pv6.lZ0kp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8817 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com I've played with the Mark 2 beta 3 SMOT for a while. I can't get anything resembling Over-Unity. It is clear that my method of playing with the device, then packing up the ramp magnets, track etc is not a good way to work with such a delicate system. I ca n't set aside a space to leave it in a working condition between plays. Given all this I'm stopping "work" on SMOTs for a while. I think that if I could have build a decent off-ramp catcher I may have had more luck. As it is very little energy from the fall of the ball goes into pushing the ball horizontally. I'll do the ball capture tests that Greg Watson suggested then stop work on SMOTs. I'll wait to see if others can make the kits go before getting back into the game. I have no regrets about the time I've spent on this. I've learnt a lot about magnetic fields and my 3-year-old has had a fun time playing with it too. Good luck everyone and Greg, it would be great to a video tape of closed loop SMOT going. It was my fantasy to have a live CuSeeMe feed of a SMOT going forever. Oh well, may be someone else could do it. Cheers Martin Sevior X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 13:50:29 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:50:21 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:48:47 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Possible breakthrough Resent-Message-ID: <"KGQqB.0.NK1.Bm1kp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4069 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com The " Big Y " magnet configuration, 120 deg. spacing, two repelling, one attracting, looks promising.See at (http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/lafonte.html). I doubt if I will make any money from this so I thought the least I could do for my efforts is to put my name to it. So I'm going to call it, the LaFonte Motor/Generator, (if it works). The test that I have done so far show , as best I can tell, that the force on all three magnets during the attraction mode is as follows, the two in repulsion share 50% of the attraction force, (25% per magnet), the magnet in attraction mode the othe r 50%. What is interesting here, (if these test results are correct) is that the two magnets in repulsion act as one magnet equal in attraction force to the single magnet that is in the attraction mode. If this is correct, then something very strange is goin g on here. The two magnets in repulsion are storing potential energy in the form of magnetic fields in repulsion as they move toward the center ! Where does this energy come from? The single magnet in attraction (bottom) is able to do work as it is pulled into the center. The magnets in the repulsion mode (top two) are also able to pull and do work while moving to the center! Does this ability of the top two to do work decrease as they near the center? Where does the energy come from to compress the two top magnets? If a balance system is used then the magnets could be moved together with no effort to speak of and then the bottom magnet removed with no force to speak of and all the repulsion force stored in the top two magnets could be used for doing usefull work ! What if the bottom magnet was replaced with a copper coil and functioned as a magnet just at intervials? I am going back to review my tests, if anyone should care to run some tests or come up with a different energy profile please let me know. If these tests are correct then true overunity by the bucket load is here and easy to build. I would like to thank Greg Watson for his help in putting an illustration on the wed of my discovery. He seems to get 120 seconds out of every minute. I average about 30! Thanks, Butch LaFonte X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 14:27:04 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:31:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Jason Aldo To: HLafonte@aol.com Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Free energy magnetic switch? Resent-Message-ID: <"MCTSg2.0.gb3.SI2kp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4070 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com A few days ago someone wrote in describing a means by which to turn a permanent magnetic field on an off. An iron rod with a magnet on one end was used to pick up an iron object at the opposite end of the rod. When a second magnet was placed opposite of t he first magnet so that the end of the rod was sandwiched between the two magnets, the field would connect directly between the magnets, thus shorting the field. This prevented the end of the rod from being magnetic anymore and the iron object would fall back down. I've experimented with this and it works. This mechanism could be overunity only if the force of attraction of the second magnet to the rod is equal to the force needed to pull the magnet off. In this way there would be no net work involved in switching the force of the permanent ma gnet on and off. I've been trying to determine if these forces are equal. Does anyone know where to obtain some sort of small dynometer that could be used to measure the pull of magnets? X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 16:43:57 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Wes Crosiar" To: Subject: Re: Minto Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:53:05 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"TrWla1.0.xH6.fI4kp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4073 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I have had several request for the book on solar motors from the early 1900's IT IS: THE GOLDEN THREAD, 2500 YEARS OF SOLAR ARCHITECTURE TECHNOLOGY BY KIM OR KIN BUTTI WES X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 17:34:51 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:34:38 -0700 From: bpaddock@csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Free energy magnetic switch? Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:24:52 -0400 Reply-To: bpaddock@csonline.net References: Lines: 17 Resent-Message-ID: <"B0oBh3.0.JD4.T25kp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4074 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com >some sort of small dynometer that could be used to measure the pull of >magnets? Now about the kitchen? A small hanging scale might be of use. "We, the willing. Lead by the unknowing. Are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much for so long with so little; We are now qualified to do any thing with nothing forever." - The Preface to Murphy's Laws. -- For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 19:24:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:24:38 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:24:00 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Free energy magnetic switch? Resent-Message-ID: <"3MwDV2.0.O.af6kp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4075 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Peter, I wrote the piece about the switch. The best way I know to see if the same work is required to remove the magnet as work it can do during attraction is, put a balance system on it (I,m trying to get one illustrated on the wed now) and see if it works the same with the iron piece picked up and without picking it up. I,m scared that the attraction force is less going to the iron bar than it is going away from the bar. that would mean that you would half to put additional work into it to get off the bar. This work might be the same amount of work done in picking up the small iron piece. I hope that I am wrong, I have tried to figure out this switch myself. Let me Know. Butch LaFonte X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 19:28:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:28:38 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:28:04 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: brachistochrone Resent-Message-ID: <"1sM0i3.0.IM.Lj6kp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4076 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Isn,t a brachistochrone a dinosaur? Butch X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jul 1 14:30:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 14:30:11 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:50:59 -1000 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Parlor trick ( small magnet against big magnet) Resent-Message-ID: <"_fVsv.0.gd4.YRNkp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4096 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Butch - > If you have a very small magnet on a string and it > is in the attraction mode to a very large magnet > that you have on a string also, and you had one > string in the left hand, and the other string in the > right hand, and your eyes were closed, would you > know which string was attached to the small > magnet? I think I see what you're getting at, but a more relevant (to the "Y" idea) case would be: One string to a small magnet in attraction to a strong magnet, and another string to the same kind of small magnet in attraction to a magnet which is even stronger than the first strong magnet. In that case you could certainly feel the difference. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 19:49:50 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:46:22 -0500 From: n5qxd To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: brachistochrone References: <970630222802_-293200982@emout15.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"SEN2F1.0.e16.o17kp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4077 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com HLafonte@aol.com wrote: > Isn,t a brachistochrone a dinosaur? > Butch I thought it was what the dinosaur left. X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 19:54:22 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:53:59 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:50:11 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: brachistochrone Resent-Message-ID: <"A6D5e.0.gk1.657kp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4078 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I was sure it was a note from an obsolete woodwind. On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, n5qxd wrote: > HLafonte@aol.com wrote: > > > Isn,t a brachistochrone a dinosaur? > > Butch > > I thought it was what the dinosaur left. > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 19:56:28 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:51:25 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Bob Paddock cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, John Schnurer Su bject: Re: Free energy magnetic switch? Resent-Message-ID: <"UUbyl2.0.CN6.o77kp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4079 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com I thought the motto at the bottom is the USMC motto. On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Bob Paddock wrote: > >some sort of small dynometer that could be used to measure the pull of > >magnets? > > Now about the kitchen? A small hanging scale might be of > use. > > "We, the willing. Lead by the unknowing. Are doing the > impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much for so > long with so little; We are now qualified to do any thing > with nothing forever." - The Preface to Murphy's Laws. > > -- > For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: > http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock > Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, > Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, > Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experiment. > > X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 20:43:10 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:43:49 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:37:15 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Parlor trick ( small magnet against big magnet) Resent-Message-ID: <"6rdLY1.0.OB1.op7kp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4081 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com RE: "LaFonte Motor/Generator" Rick said> It will take actual measurement to check this out. Playing with it on the desktop gave me the impression that the 'pullaway' of the magnet mitigating the force of the other two was really large in comparison to the 3-way attraction and the subsequent 2-wa y repulsion. I'd guess from the feel of it that they balance out as usual. In the absence of any real measurement to the contrary, there's no reason for me to believe that this configuration presents an extraordinary exception to the rule that the the ene rgy expended pulling magnets apart equals the energy gained having them pull together. snip> Rick, (and anyone else who would like to reply) I have a question I have been wanting to get opinions on for a while now. If you have a very small magnet on a string and it is in the attraction mode to a very large magnet that you have on a string also, and you had one string in the left hand, and the other string in the right hand, and your eyes were closed, would you k now which string was attached to the small magnet? ( in a static mode and in an "in and out" mode ) Also, if you moved only one hand at a time? Isn't the pulling force always equal for each object, except for any rest inertia? HELP! Butch LaFonte X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 20:55:54 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:56:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:58:20 -0600 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: brachistochrone Resent-Message-ID: <"339pK3.0.Il1.9_7kp"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4082 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > I was sure it was a note from an obsolete woodwind. > >On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, n5qxd wrote: > >> HLafonte@aol.com wrote: >> >> > Isn,t a brachistochrone a dinosaur? >> > Butch >> >> I thought it was what the dinosaur left. >> >> It was Isaac Newton's nickname for his nanny. :-) X-From_: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 22:24:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:24:36 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Space Drives Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:26:36 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"sCnRz3.0.IA2.JI9kp"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4084 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com Hi Tim and all, I'm a big fan of these inertial machines too-- > When I was in high school and then later in college I experimented with > several reactionless space drives. None of them would work when given the swing > test from the rafters of my dad's barn. The most interesting one for me > was > Dr. Laithwaite's Inertial Propulsion Invention. It was written up in the > "Science and Invention Encyclopedia". It used precessing gyroscopes as a way to > return the reaction mass. It didn't work either, but it seemed like a > great idea. Some of these drives do seem to work as far as I know. There are a great number of them and I think they would have to be considered each on their own merits or lack thereof. Tom Valone and his group tested the Thomson drive in a boat. As I recall it ca rried the boat across a lake at about 2 knots. They did a mathematical analysis of the thing and showed it did have an unequal force distribution. And what about the famous picture of Laithewaite holding a long metal rod with a heavy gyro on the end wit h one fingertip? Have you seen that picture? How is that explainable with standard Newtonian theory? It is well known that there is something VERY FUNNY about inertia. Mach's principle, the equivalence principle, and the current controversy about centrifugal force in black holes tells me that we haven't got a handle on this at all. (For those who haven't heard it, it has been shown by studying the reversal of centrifugal force near black holes that CF is a REAL force, not a ficticious one as is said in the textbooks. "Centrifugal Force: a few surprises", Marek Abramowicz in Mon. Not . R. Astr. Soc. (1990) 245, 733-746 is a representative article about this.) > If the zero-point energy of space can be tapped as a source of energy, > why not momentum ? Exactly. Fred