Back to hurling insults 


 It's in the amount of energy the compression can add. In the case of the rock which is almost non compressible, it doesn't bounce very high at all since there is little to no energy added. Same goes for a marshmallow, an apple, an egg or anything else you want to raise to a height and drop.

Like i said,you really need to go do some re education.<-- remember telling me that some time back

The mass of the ball and it's elasticity provide the compression that generates the energy to lift the ball apart way back up.

Oh really?. So we can just sit this ball on the concrete,and wait for it to bounce all by it self?

As I pointed out, if the energy for the return bounce was stored at the top of the lift then a golf ball and a rock would bounce and return to the same heights but they don't so where is the difference?

Are you for real?
What is the difference between a spring and a solid steel shaft?.
Here is a hint. One has the ability to stretch or be compressed,and the other dose not.

We are talking about a golf ball here,which has a completely different makeup composition to that of your non bouncing rock.Most of the kinetic energy is used to compress the ball to raise it back up. The ball simply dose not compress due to it's mass and elasticity. The energy to compress the ball for the return bounce originally comes from the energy used to raise the ball in the first place. The mass of the ball,and the height it was raised determines the energy required to achieve the lift.The very same amount of energy is now stored as potential energy within that ball. Once the ball begins to fall(return to it's starting position) the energy is then converted into kinetic energy.If all the energy was returned once the ball hit it's starting position,then there is no energy left to compress the ball in order for it to make it's return bounce. Your rock dosnt bounce because all of the energy is returned as an impact upon the ground,as it has no elasticity to store energy for a return bounce.

Wow... eleven pages or more since I last checked in. And still nothing of significance, but lots of noise and fury.

Several points, if I can get through them without FireFox crashing...

First, the most important part of this website's philosophy isn't "Overunity" but rather is OPEN SOURCE. Most of us are interested in "overunity" or "free energy" RESEARCH, and that's fine. But it should be done in accordance with the OPEN SOURCE principles of full disclosure and sharing. Otherwise, why talk about it here? The "secret black box" that produces some interesting effect really seems to me to violate this fundamental principle of this forum. There is no way we can run down errors or explore seemingly new physical phenomena in an atmosphere of secrecy and partial disclosure.

Next... R-G and RG: Please check out this:
http://revolution-green.com/experimenter-of-the-week-russ-gries/
Note the date. Gries has found himself a great "Sugar Daddy" who is funding his laboratory and who even made it possible for Russ to relocate his entire family. Seemingly unlimited funding is there for Russ to tinker to his heart's content, and you can see the nice things he has produced and the nice equipment he has to play with. Yet, after all those dollars and all those projects, he has never been able to create a single Joule of excess energy or "overunity" performance in anything he's looked at. He actually is a great tinkerer and has wound up being an actual FE-OU _DEBUNKER_ because nothing he builds and reports on has actually turned out to be OU-FE at all. 
R-G the website does give experimenters a boost and does report on all kinds of things in the energy and new physics sectors. The comment sections are great places for _rational_ discussion. Mark Dansie himself probably has more practical experience looking at and for revolutionary claims of OU and FE than anyone else I can think of. He has backup from scientists and engineers when his own technical knowledge and abilities aren't sufficient for him to make conclusions on his own, and he's not afraid to call a spade a spade.


Then... Voltage, how does _that_ work? I see a lot of noise and fury, signifying nothing. Some people are evidently in violent agreement, others are badly misguided by their incorrect conceptions of electrodynamics, and even others are just off-the-wall spewers of gobbledegook.
http://www.studyphysics.ca/2007/30/06_forces_fields/12_voltage.pdf
Yes, voltage is a ratio of charge and energy, it is NOT energy itself. Voltage is relative to some reference; the same node in a circuit can have many different voltages assigned to it depending on the _reference level_.  Voltage is charge pressure, comes from using energy (work) to pack like charges (which repel) together in some container. Just as a compressed spring cannot release any of its stored energy unless it can push against something that can move, so with voltage. If there is no _lower voltage_ level for the packed charges to move to, there is no energy available, no matter how many charges you have packed close together.

What Kills, voltage or current? No, neither one. What kills is _power_, that is, how much energy is discharged through your load over a given unit of time.
I leave you with this little demonstration, which involves enough _energy_ to kill me dead, but because of the way that it is released it has no effect on my body at all.
Power is not energy, peak power is different from average power. If the power doesn't travel _through_ your load but rather skims along outside it because of the frequency of alternation.... well, just observe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULDh8sTc8Kw

Clearly there is current, that is a nominal 120 volt bulb there and it is glowing quite brightly. Clearly there is high voltage, those sparks are jumping gaps of more than three centimeters. Clearly (at least I hope it is clear) I am not dead.

Anyway,for your entertainment SF,we will make the first test very simple.
So carry out the test(in stead of laughing),and explain to us-if not the PM's magnetic field that did more work against the spring,then what was it that did more work against the spring.
If the coil of the electromagnet remains the same,and the applied power to that coil remains the same,then the magnetic field produced by the coil also remains the same.

One complete cycle-power to coil off,spring in resting position.
Power on-electromagnet accelerates toward (test 1) ferromagnetic block,(test 2)PM,work done is recorded by way of LB's on scales.
Power is disconnected from coil,spring returns to starting position.<-- one full cycle.

You may use any material you like for test 1 in place of the ferrite block-->even the material the PM is made from.
But at the end of the test,you must come back and explain as to what it was(if not the PM)that done the extra work against the spring in test 2.

The problem is that you are not actually measureing the input energy.  So you are looking at two different machines, seeing that one reaches a higher energy maximum and drawing a conclusion that the energy difference is supplied by the PM.

That used to be the case but at the sample rates these days it's near impossible to hear the difference. now I'm confused though. Based on marks comment on newer scopes vs older ones should I go for an analogue one or purchase the rigor I'm looking at? I guess that is a question for TK

Well, it depends. I still think that it is better for the beginning scoposcopist to learn technique using an analog scope. Digital and analog scopes will each have their little "foibles" that should be understood before attempting to interpret measurements taken with them. While it is true that DSOs make obtaining some measurements much easier than analog scopes do, you still have to watch out for those "gotchas". For example, take a look at this video, and study the scopeshot below.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc-Op1_Ka8g

What to purchase, if you have no experience with scopes at all? For 200 dollars you can get a used analog scope that originally cost thousands of dollars, and you can have a lot of fun learning how to use it well. Or you can spend 400 dollars and get a pretty powerful entry-level DSO that is so complicated that you may never actually use all its features... and you may never know whether it is lying to you or not.

Neither this experiment nor the one TinMan describes demonstrate that PMs can do work.  Does a mirror do work when it reflects a light beam, as compared to a piece of glass painted flat black?  Does a ball bounce higher when dropped (from the same height) on concrete, or when dropped on soft sand?  You are merely  _redirecting_ some of the energy that you put into the electromagnet in the first place.

This dose not answer the question in regards to the test i put forth.

Right there is a big fallacy:  You are comparing power and energy.  I can come up with all kinds of situations with solenoids and electric motors where just changing the winding will make a huge difference in the power dissipation for the same static applied force.  This is actually a very real engineering consideration in the design of a lot of electromechanical machinery.If you wanted to show that the PM is adding energy to the system then you will have to evaluate energy.  The continuous input power to the electromagnet in short order masks the energy difference required to establish the respective magnetic fields:  One stronger with the magnet and one weaker with the ferrite keeper.

The electromagnet fields strength remains the same.
This dose not answer the question posed in my test.

This dose not answer the question in regards to the test i put forth.

You can refuse to acknowledge that it does address the question, certainly. That doesn't make you right.

Your described apparatus for that "test" introduces several variables that can affect the interpretation of the results. Just ask any Dean Drive or Cox or Sandy Kidd system builder about how springs and scales interact when subject to mechanical oscillations.

Drop a rubber ball onto concrete and measure the height of bounce. Now drop the same ball from the same height onto soft sand. The ball dropped on concrete clearly bounces higher. Where did the "extra energy output" come from?

There was no extra energy output,as the energy available is set with the balls mass,and height from which it was dropped.The very same is applicable in my test. The energy input remains the same,as dose the magnetic field produced around the coil. But the energy output is increased simply by adding a PM to the system.