Author Topic: New discovery suggest that permanent magnet motors might be possible (Read 32746 times)

F6FLT · « **Reply #60 on:** October 14, 2018, 12:57:20 PM »

Quote from: citfta on October 13, 2018, 10:00:46 PM

...None of us were born knowing all about electronics or anything else for that matter, but a lot of us have taken the time to actually try and learn. And those that refuse to learn make such silly arguments for not taking the time to learn that I just have to comment on it sometimes.

Respectfully,
Carroll

PS: F6FLT sounds like an amateur radio operator's call. Are you a ham? My call is WD4SIX

Hi Carroll,

I fully agree with you. We are born ignorant. Ignorance is not a defect when it is known, because it can be corrected quite easily (and pleasantly), just study. The real defect is ignorance of one's own ignorance, or complacency towards one's own ignorance, which prevent any progress.

We all have our limits. Some can be corrected by study, others not because our intellectual capacity is insufficient. This is for example my case in PHD math. On arXiv, there are documents that I don't understand the slightest equation. I therefore do not dispute the validity of these publications since I do not understand them.
But I see people challenging simple things for others even though they don't understand them. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect: doubt is proportional to competence. The less competent you are, the less aware you are of the limits of your knowledge, the more confident you are in your "knowledge" even if it is baloney. Only education can solve the problem, in many but not all cases.

Quote

PS: F6FLT sounds like an amateur radio operator's call. Are you a ham? My call is WD4SIX

Right.

73
François

Belfior · « **Reply #61 on:** October 14, 2018, 03:55:31 PM »

Quote from: citfta on October 13, 2018, 10:00:46 PM

Very well stated F6FLT. I agree with you one hundred percent. The argument about education getting in the way of innovation is ridiculous to the extreme. When I see a novice making wild claims about a perfectly normal behavior of a circuit or device I am reminded of someone that wants to explore new worlds. They refuse to take the time to learn what worlds have been explored so everything new to them must be a new discovery. They are so simple in their thinking they refuse to even learn how to read a map to help them explore for new worlds. I have had many discussions on this and other forums with people that don't even know how to properly use the meters and other test equipment they have but they are still sure they have made some great discoveries. Thanks for your clear and accurate post.

All of this sounds very condescending, but I don't mean it to be. None of us were born knowing all about electronics or anything else for that matter, but a lot of us have taken the time to actually try and learn. And those that refuse to learn make such silly arguments for not taking the time to learn that I just have to comment on it sometimes.

Respectfully,
Carroll

PS: F6FLT sounds like an amateur radio operator's call. Are you a ham? My call is WD4SIX

Education can totally become in the way of innovation. It is just ignorance to think, that entities whose power depends on certain things like energy are not going to affect the academic world or the material that is being used to teach people.

Technology is also being kept from people because of "national security", that funnily enough means that the people (nation) are not going to get it

Quote

...None of us were born knowing all about electronics or anything else for that matter, but a lot of us have taken the time to actually try and learn. And those that refuse to learn make such silly arguments for not taking the time to learn that I just have to comment on it sometimes.

Totally agree on the first part, but someone might be just learning. We were not all born 60 years ago and are learned ham radio operators. Silly arguments should be met by simple examples, that this person can use to verify your point on the bench. The people that actually "refuse to learn" have the most diplomas on the walls and they are practically priests of the dogma, that was imposed on them. So in their case the education totally stops any innovation and they will go preaching this dogma to next next generation. They will stay in office and get good grants and research packages.

I meet these kinda academic people on regular basis and they are the ones saying "there is no free lunch" or "proving" things by saying "as we all know..." Well I have had many free lunches and I don't know, so tell me.

So my take on all this is that everything is just fairy tales, until you have proven it on a bench and few others replicated it. Education is a valuable asset in your research and will save you a lot of money and time. If you have an intuitive idea that is out of the normal scientific scope, just discus it with your friends and try to prove it on your bench. If you say it out loud on a forum you will be ridiculed until you crawl back to your hole and pay your electric bill like everybody else.

Aristotle said: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." meaning that you can debate with a person about anything, even if you do not agree. You both make points about the idea and come to some conclusion. Well in the case you are both intelligent people anyway.

We have been robbed for 100 years of evolution already and we should have at least our solar system explored.

Floor · « **Reply #62 on:** October 14, 2018, 07:50:34 PM »

@Bifilor

You rock !

"When a finger is used you pull up 105g PLUS anything the magnet interaction needs to get his done. So 105g was pulled plus any work the magnets needed for separation."

No... but good guess any way.

As soon as rotation occurs (from 90 degrees toward 40) a RELLING force arises along
the slideing magnet vector.

Although my finger pressure "causes " the SL weight to be lifted.... that lifting is assisted
by the magnet interactions ... ie as soon as .... or soon after rotation beyound 90 degrees ocurs.
That assisting force increases as RO moves toward the 40 degrees of rotation.

regards
floor

Floor · « **Reply #63 on:** October 14, 2018, 07:57:49 PM »

ALSO PLEASE NOTE

Rotation is motivated very nearly equally.... by attractionS and repulsionS ... BOTH.

Belfior · « **Reply #64 on:** October 14, 2018, 08:33:23 PM »

@Floor:

I don't rock. I just have opinions that are sometimes crap and sometimes they raise questions in people. That is something everybody should do. Do not repeat what you were told, but try for yourself and ask questions.

Also I'm a computer engineer, that is studied under electrical engineering, but that only means I can tell the difference between AC and DC. Well. Most of the time...

I am very interested in the universe and the stuff that fills it. The only reason we can't go see it is because we need energy and propulsion. The fact that we are still using chinese new year rockets to do that is just mind boggling. I believe that is a just a dog and pony show for the people that actually pay for it and in reality the CIA is all over the solar system. I am glad I am not alone with this opinion.

Just watch https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6400614/ by Dr. Steven Greer

Why I propose stuff that people/classical engineering might disagree with is because I feel that the only way to hide this technology is to keep us occupied with something that leads to underunity or rocketry.

Here is a ham radio operator, who does not believe in the common antenna theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J02-iLzjFbE&feature=youtu.be&t=1351

onepower · « **Reply #65 on:** October 14, 2018, 09:25:53 PM »

F6FLT

Quote

Unfortunately, the facts deny what you say.
Where does the energy you currently use come from? What makes it easy for you to communicate with anyone everywhere? With what do you travel around the planet? Why are you talking about "electric or magnetic fields", "forces", "energy", "momentum", "power"?
Are all these devices you use and these concepts you handle, the products of scientists and engineers, or of do-it-yourselfers and handymen?

Not to imply too much but a majority of the patents which have benefited mankind were made by people with little or no formal expertise in the field they mastered.

Quote

A new idea appears when it is mature, that is, when the context of human knowledge has reached a point from which it can emerge in the minds of some, the best prepared, so-called "pioneers" (for example in electricity, Coulomb, Ampère, Ørsted, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla).
As Louis Pasteur said, "luck favours prepared minds".
Those who innovate are those who know the state of the art, and are therefore able in their observations to differentiate between what is well known and what is new, or are able to find new ways to explore rather than re-invent hot water.

I agree, however I know many very well educated people who have never accomplished anything in their field of expertise. It would seem to be a combination of attributes such as understanding and knowledge but just as important creativity, curiosity and an open mind. Inventors invent things regardless of their occupation... the rest simply follow along for the ride.

Quote

When I see hundreds of posts just on the single wire transmission, I feel like I see children playing a puzzle for which they obviously don't have all the pieces. When you have an electronics engineer background, you know that any device is always inductively or capacitively coupled to its environment, even a simple wire, and you know whether you can neglect its inductance or capacitance, or not. In this case, the components at the wire termination are always more or less coupled to the ground or the generator, so we have a conventional circuit looped by a capacity in the order of pF, and the energy is well drawn from the generator (I myself wasted my time doing the measurement).
The unprepared minds do not see any capacitor, so they shout "Miracle!", unable like children to understand that they are missing parts. The prepared minds include capacities in their schema, and perfectly model single wire transmission with LTspice.

That is a good example how many can be mislead however it is not as cut and dry as you would suggest. For example I built a circuit with what you imply is just a capacitor and I made one plate cease to exist, to disappear. In another instance one capacitor plate was a gas having mobility in which case the plate could change in volume and geometry. Sure it's just a capacitor in some peoples mind who seem to have a simplistic view of things. However my curiosity was when does a capacitor cease to act like one which is a very different story.

Now imagine your single wire capacitor plate has a core of high explosive and once charged to a very high potential was detonated. Now the vaporized capacitor plate is fluid and it is expanding at ballistic velocities, what then?. Is it still just a simple old capacitor plate or should we consider the fact that it now has a wave like properties, high velocity and changes in volume and geometry?. So no it's not just a simple capacitor to those who have the expertise and creativity to think outside the box.

The question is not always how are all these things the same as other things but under what circumstances are they not the same. Under what circumstances does something cease to act as we would expect it should?. That is creativity, invention and a much more difficult proposition than the same old thing in my opinion.

Floor · « **Reply #66 on:** October 14, 2018, 09:39:30 PM »

Quote from: Belfior on October 14, 2018, 03:55:31 PM

If you have an intuitive idea that is out of the normal scientific scope, just discus it with your friends and try to prove it on your bench.

Is this a bench proof or do I need highf def video and replication,
or is this fudamental enough / obvious enough to speak for itself ?

Not trying to be a smart a___s here... just asking for opinion.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978

Belfior · « **Reply #67 on:** October 14, 2018, 11:01:23 PM »

Quote from: Floor on October 14, 2018, 09:39:30 PM

Is this a bench proof or do I need highf def video and replication,
or is this fudamental enough / obvious enough to speak for itself ?

Not trying to be a smart a___s here... just asking for opinion.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978

Well I think it depends what your intentions are? If you want to stay alive you don't tell anybody about it and you just grind bitcoins in your garage with your free electricity.

Steven Greer has a template for publishing it and means to compensate you also.

If you just want to get rich you sell it to an energy company and they will put it on shelf for the next 100 years.

I want to end this slavery and start humanity's journey beyond this planet. Without trying to keep my nation on top of others or weaponizing the invention

F6FLT · « **Reply #68 on:** October 14, 2018, 11:07:51 PM »

Quote from: onepower on October 14, 2018, 09:25:53 PM

...For example I built a circuit with what you imply is just a capacitor and I made one plate cease to exist, to disappear. In another instance one capacitor plate was a gas having mobility in which case the plate could change in volume and geometry. Sure it's just a capacitor in some peoples mind who seem to have a simplistic view of things. However my curiosity was when does a capacitor cease to act like one which is a very different story.
Now imagine your single wire capacitor plate has a core of high explosive and once charged to a very high potential was detonated. Now the vaporized capacitor plate is fluid and it is expanding at ballistic velocities, what then?. Is it still just a simple old capacitor plate or should we consider the fact that it now has a wave like properties, high velocity and changes in volume and geometry?. So no it's not just a simple capacitor to those who have the expertise and creativity to think outside the box.

These experiments are very good ideas to try, at least it is funny. They enter the category "parametric device". This means that you change some values of the components.
The apparent novelty is only due to the fact that most of common devices don't use these methods and that ordinary formula that applies to common electronics devices seem to indicate extraordinary results. But I don't see them as real novelties. The analysis of such cases needs to forget electronics formula and to apply only physics laws by integrating data and parameters over time.

For instance the electronics formula E=1/2 * Q²/C can let you think that decreasing C will give you free extra energy in the capacitor. But you will be wrong. You must calculate the work of the electric force F=q.E on the electrons when you move the plates apart from each other in order to reduce the capacity. This mechanical energy will be exactly the "extra" energy that you retrieve inside the capacitor, but it has been spent to change C, not free! Same thing with parametric inductance (Steorn's motor mistake).

The idea to use explosions to change drastically a parameter is not new either ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator ). It's not easy to be revolutionary in physics because physicists are curious people and they always try to find loopholes in their theories to go further.

Quote

The question is not always how are all these things the same as other things but under what circumstances are they not the same. Under what circumstances does something cease to act as we would expect it should?. That is creativity, invention and a much more difficult proposition than the same old thing in my opinion.

The method is right. The implementation is much more difficult than we think. I don't count the number of times I thought I had a new idea, and physicists had been working on the subject long before, even for some, in the 19th century!

Nevertheless we have to try our luck...

Belfior · « **Reply #69 on:** October 15, 2018, 12:26:04 AM »

Quote from: F6FLT on October 14, 2018, 11:07:51 PM

The method is right. The implementation is much more difficult than we think. I don't count the number of times I thought I had a new idea, and physicists had been working on the subject long before, even for some, in the 19th century!
Nevertheless we have to try our luck...

I am a dumbass, but I come up with stuff every day and I write it in my journal. I mean ideas like how transmutation or what ever could work. Then few months pass and I find a study that has done exactly that. I thought I discovered saturable reactors, but they have been used since 1885

This gives me great pleasure, that I can come up with a new thing (new to me) and even if it turns out it was invented earlier, it assures me that I might have a chance in this free energy field.

Btw the Russians have done a lot of work on parametric oscillators and there are claims they were OU, but where can you get the papers and who will translate them

onepower · « **Reply #70 on:** October 15, 2018, 02:49:56 AM »

F6FLT

Quote

For instance the electronics formula E=1/2 * Q²/C can let you think that decreasing C will give you free extra energy in the capacitor. But you will be wrong. You must calculate the work of the electric force F=q.E on the electrons when you move the plates apart from each other in order to reduce the capacity. This mechanical energy will be exactly the "extra" energy that you retrieve inside the capacitor, but it has been spent to change C, not free! Same thing with parametric inductance (Steorn's motor mistake).

I would agree and it is best to concentrate on the fundamentals courtesy of people like Ampere, Faraday, Weber, Tesla, Steinmetz and others before all the hocus pocus introduced by Einstein and friends. In fact there is no free lunch and the forces on the fields of any given particle are not much different than tangible objects. My examples were simply to illustrate that there are many ways to skin a cat.

Quote

The idea to use explosions to change drastically a parameter is not new either ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator ). It's not easy to be revolutionary in physics because physicists are curious people and they always try to find loopholes in their theories to go further.

Yes I am well aware of how flux compression or EMP devices work and I have done a few experiments however I was not speaking of the magnetic field but violent expansion/contraction of an electric field which is almost unknown in the art. The magnetic field is not the glue which binds matter together it is electric in nature. In fact the magnetic field has been studied to death for decades and the electric field was ignored however this is no longer the case. Meta-materials or nano-technology, cold fusion and dual layer capacitor/membranes have opened everyone's eyes to endless possibilities. I have little interest in magnetic fields... it's a well worn path to nowhere in my opinion. I mean it doesn't even bother to show up until after the electric field has done all the work, lol.

Quote
The question is not always how are all these things the same as other things but under what circumstances are they not the same. Under what circumstances does something cease to act as we would expect it should?. That is creativity, invention and a much more difficult proposition than the same old thing in my opinion.

Quote

The method is right. The implementation is much more difficult than we think. I don't count the number of times I thought I had a new idea, and physicists had been working on the subject long before, even for some, in the 19th century!
Nevertheless we have to try our luck...

It sounds like you have done a few experiments, lol. First it is hard enough to get even a basic experiment set up with anything in the way of accurate measurement. Then if there are multiple timing functions or variables the setup looks easy by comparison. Then once everything plays out we have the problem of determining what the measurements were looking at actually mean in reality. There is nothing easy about it in any sense of the word in my opinion however it is the only way to learn something new.

Floor · « **Reply #71 on:** October 16, 2018, 01:49:37 AM »

the topic is .....

New discovery suggest that permanent magnet motors might be possible
« on: September 26, 2018, 05:53:45 PM »

I stumbled across this link. Interesting reading, but is it legit?
Please share your views on this.

https://www.powerelectronics.com/alternative-energy/new-discovery-could-lead-commercial-production-permanent-magnet-motors

posted by Vidar

Re: New discovery suggest that permanent magnet motors might be possible
« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2018, 09:39:30 PM »

Quote

Quote from: Belfior on October 14, 2018, 03:55:31 PM

" If you have an intuitive idea that is out of the normal scientific scope, just discus it with your friends and try to prove it on your bench." END QUOTE

Quote from floor
"Is this a bench proof or do I need high def video and replication,
or is this fudamental enough / obvious enough to speak for itself ?

Not trying to be a smart a___s here... just asking for opinion."

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978

End quote

Bifilar.... your responce

Quote
"Well I think it depends what your intentions are? If you want to stay alive you don't tell anybody about it and you just grind bitcoins in your garage with your free electricity."
End Quote

Bench proof or not depends on ones intentions ? non secquiter or what ?

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6v9zkz

telecom · « **Reply #72 on:** October 16, 2018, 02:02:27 AM »

Again "explicit content".

Floor · « **Reply #73 on:** October 16, 2018, 02:14:34 AM »

thanks

These are the same videos I last posted in the other topic (Magnet Motion and Measurement)
You have seen them ...

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6vbmvo

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6va1an

Floor · « **Reply #74 on:** October 16, 2018, 02:31:12 AM »

And this one

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978

Give me reason to expect that the inventor might eventually succeed..

News:

User Menu