Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: gaby de wilde on September 14, 2007, 05:08:43 PM

Title: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 14, 2007, 05:08:43 PM
Quote
3 POINT INTERACTION
ABSTRACT
Unleash complimentary reactions utilizing the subtraction of contradicting actions.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text/3-point-interaction/

Attached image:
the top magnet inducts a field into the strips of steel, those are pushed and pulled as a result thereof (see paper). ;)
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: ken_nyus on September 14, 2007, 08:48:20 PM
Gaby,

On your page with the explanation, at first you are talking about "body1", "body 2", "body 3". but then you switch to this language...

"...On the side of our to be secondary magnet ..."

You lose me there when you start using the words "secondary magnet", "primary magnet".

Can you relate this back to "body 1" etc.?
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 15, 2007, 01:57:48 AM
On your page with the explanation, at first you are talking about "body1", "body 2", "body 3". but then you switch to this language...

"...On the side of our to be secondary magnet ..."

You lose me there when you start using the words "secondary magnet", "primary magnet".

Can you relate this back to "body 1" etc.?

It says "On the side of our to be secondary magnet one already finds 2 poles." meaning the secondary magnet is playing a double role as body 2 and 3. I didn't know which way would be better to explain, ended up using both not explaining it at all. haha

In the drawing above a field is inducted into the steel stator strips by the rotor magnet at the top. The rotor magnet in the center then pulls and pushes against the magnetised strip.

From what I tested so far the center magnet's push and pull combined express more force onto the rotor as the top magnet needs to move over the next strip.

It's a magnetic communicator!

:-)
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 02:39:09 AM
common kids? I figure there are only 2 things going on (for anyone to debunk.)

1) the rotating communicator magnet is suffering incredible eddy drag from moving from one strip to the next strip.

2) the magnetised stator strip is not push/pulling the core rotor magnet.

Which one will it be?

What I think happens:

The strip on the domain-wall of the core magnet is not subjected to either pole. But the 3rd pole (at the top) is inducting it's field in it. This field accelerates the strip away from the domain wall with more force as the rotating stator magnet expresses onto it, the stator doesn't care and just inducts it's field in the very next strip etc. :D

I still have not decently tested my hypothesis but it seems to work.

Where is the flaw?
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: brnbrade on September 16, 2007, 03:45:12 AM
Hi gaby

Which software you used to draw?

tks
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 05:37:51 AM
Hi gaby

Which software you used to draw?

tks
I use windo$ pain.  It has something spartan to it, I cant put it to words. Why you ask? I think it's an hilarious question! I've been describing devices like this for quite some time but there always seems to be something that can be misunderstood or taken in an unusual perspective beyond the subject.

What can I say, I'm an unusual artist, I do everything from web design to journalism, article writing, innovation, philosophy, I make photos, build and destroy kinetic artworks for myself and I make and drink a lot of coffee. I do all arts and I'm not good at any of them. In fact I'm so bad at each and every one it makes quite a style and statement of it's own. I mean, if you can write something more incredible as this forum post you show me ok? lolzz

From what I've tested I'm not sure the strips of steel are nesassary, you can just use a solid donut and hold the other magnet behind it it appears. Laminated would be better of course. Now I don't have the stuffs to test this theory. It's my opinion that brilliant ideas like this should be posted and discussed.

We need to figure out where this contraption finds it's equilibrium if any and why. Then we can attack this problem rather then slaughter some inventors in a septic gang bang. ::)

Holding a strip of metal on the domain wall does not induct a field into it, even if the strip of iron is inside the magnet it still doesn't induct a field over the length of it.

Quote
PM FLUX SWITCH
ABSTRACT
Method of preventing magnetic flux from extending into a target material.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/flux-switching/text/pm-flux-switch/

As I've explained here the combination of push and pull adds up to zero.

Quote
3 POINT INTERACTION
ABSTRACT
Unleash complimentary reactions utilizing the subtraction of contradicting actions.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text/3-point-interaction/

This also means there is no flux inducted into the strips at this point(strangely enough).  But when the other magnet moves over the strip (or behind it) it will obviously induct a field into it. And as our strip was on the domain wall it is now subjected to both push and pull forces. It no longer sits there being neutral. How much energy does it cost to move the inducting magnet over to the next strip; is the question I guess. Troy Reed for example describes how his motor first needs to be energised then can function as both an electrical and a mechanical power source. I see laminated things in his patent.(http://forum.go-here.nl/images/smiles/icon_mrgreen.gif)


http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/troy-reed

Why use a reed switch, a coil and electricity to make a pulse if we can do it with a rotor magnet?

Who said we cant? Why?
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: sm0ky2 on September 16, 2007, 06:30:07 AM
from my own personal experiences in this area, what generally happens is the paramagnetic strips/ring/ect pulls TOWARDS the magnets regardless of polarity, and will get stuck in the spot where the flux lines are most dense.


Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: brnbrade on September 16, 2007, 06:43:11 AM
Hi gaby

I seeking a free cad soft for my draw.
I uses the paint shop, but don?t very good soft to draw prototypes.
Your works is good design.

regards
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: xpenzif on September 16, 2007, 07:24:46 AM
Now I don't have the stuffs to test this theory.
If it hasn't been tested I wouldn't yet call it a theory.

Anyways, it would be nice if magnets worked like this, however I agree with sm0ky2 that the magnets should be attracted to the steel strips regardless of polarity. You can try this experiment to verify it:
(http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7161/magdi3.jpg)
The magnets will still be attracted to the steel regardless of the other magnet's presence.
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: RebeLLz on September 16, 2007, 09:55:58 AM
here Fluxgate  ;D 0,0% output http://www.rafoeg.de/index.php/seite/10,Forschungsprojekte/20,Generatoren/Generatoren.html#fluxgate
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 05:29:30 PM
Nice flux gate  :)

from my own personal experiences in this area, what generally happens is the paramagnetic strips/ring/ect pulls TOWARDS the magnets regardless of polarity, and will get stuck in the spot where the flux lines are most dense.

Ah yes, I use to think flux scaled with force to. But, I'm exited to inform you it's wrong. Flux is the biggest under 180 degrees while force is the biggest under 90 degrees. The thing is: the forces of both poles can do work in one and the same direction. But: they can only~ever induct as much flux as their difference. It will either bake a north or a south pole into something or non at all.

For doing work you never have enough poles, but if you want to induct a field you need to use one kind of poles.

So the strip is getting magnetised by a single pole at the top, then the strip is pushed and pulled but without inducting much flux into it. I'm under the impression the strips don't magnetise instantaneously so the forces pulling the strip out of the flux should persist a bit longer as the flux inducting into it. The size of the magnet and spacing of the strips should keep the number of strips under it almost constant.

The apparatus should spin fast enough for the strip to move into a repulsive position before this flux is fully inducted into it. By the time the flux in the strip ramps up far enough to start repelling one side of the other magnet the strip has already moved close to the domain wall, the push is now much bigger when leaving the wall as that what was opposed when moving into this position. The pushing pole should have pulled the strip backwards while repulsion was building.

The question is:

Can a pushing and a pulling magnet pull a magnetised strip out of a pulling field. If they are all 3 the same size the answer seems obvious? The (by pushing) complimented pulling magnet is going to win the rope pull? The push will only collapse when the strip has successfully moved away from the lone actuator lodestone inducting it's flux therein.

A huge difference with a flux gate is that the gate doesn't use magnetic forces. I thought Ecklin Stationary Armature Generator was quite a hip flux gate.

http://www.kz1300.com/ecklin/

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/john-ecklin

I envision this push/pull thing is also the big trick to use in a pulse motor. You get push, pull and a lack of back emf! What more do we want? :D

The magnetic field is not opposing the current. (http://forum.go-here.nl/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif)

Then use an air coil to extend a permanent magnet, just like those strips in the device here. But I don't like all the wires, so maybe we can make it without? lol
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 05:44:13 PM
the magnets should be attracted to the steel strips regardless of polarity. You can try this experiment to verify it:
(http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7161/magdi3.jpg)
The magnets will still be attracted to the steel regardless of the other magnet's presence.

Here,

(http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/flux-switching/text/flux-laminator/2.png)

Now the steel strip is not attracted to the magnet at the right. It's trying to induct 2 different fields at the same time. I just place a strip on the domain wall then move another magnet over the strip. As soon as the slightest field is inducted into the strip it forcefully moves off the wall.
Title: attracted to steel_not
Post by: Earl on September 16, 2007, 06:07:28 PM
The magnets will not be attracted to the steel until the steel has a minimal thickness.

Regards, Earl

Now I don't have the stuffs to test this theory.
If it hasn't been tested I wouldn't yet call it a theory.

Anyways, it would be nice if magnets worked like this, however I agree with sm0ky2 that the magnets should be attracted to the steel strips regardless of polarity. You can try this experiment to verify it:
(http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7161/magdi3.jpg)
The magnets will still be attracted to the steel regardless of the other magnet's presence.
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: sm0ky2 on September 16, 2007, 07:13:46 PM
the magnets should be attracted to the steel strips regardless of polarity. You can try this experiment to verify it:
(http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7161/magdi3.jpg)
The magnets will still be attracted to the steel regardless of the other magnet's presence.

Here,

(http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/flux-switching/text/flux-laminator/2.png)

Now the steel strip is not attracted to the magnet at the right. It's trying to induct 2 different fields at the same time. I just place a strip on the domain wall then move another magnet over the strip. As soon as the slightest field is inducted into the strip it forcefully moves off the wall.



the other magnet is not necessary to create this effect. If you induce a field along the domain lines such as in this picture, the steel will repel itself to one side or the other, because it does not want to have both sets of flux lines cutting each other like that, they would rather travel in the other direction towards the magnetic poles.
In actuality if you were able to hold the magnet Precisely ON the line there would not be a force in either direction as they would balance out, but in practice you cannot find a line that infinetesimally small so you are more to one side than the other, which pushes the steel into either the N or the S field.
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 07:14:42 PM
The magnets will not be attracted to the steel until the steel has a minimal thickness.

2 repelling magnets repulsion practically disappears when you hold the shield in the center. But move it  slightly towards one of the magnets and it will be attracted and repelled. I'm not sure in what proportion tho.

It does show how a magnetic shield can be moved in and out of position by moving towards the magnet. Repelling magnets equally far away from the shield give much less repulsion. Even if the extra push and pull end up equal in size we still get a magnetised strip that we can turn on and off.
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 07:32:27 PM
Quote
(http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/flux-switching/text/flux-laminator/2.png)

Now the steel strip is not attracted to the magnet at the right. It's trying to induct 2 different fields at the same time. I just place a strip on the domain wall then move another magnet over the strip. As soon as the slightest field is inducted into the strip it forcefully moves off the wall.

If you induce a field along the domain lines such as in this picture, the steel will repel itself to one side or the other, because it does not want to have both sets of flux lines cutting each other like that, they would rather travel in the other direction towards the magnetic poles.

Not entirely, the domain wall is easy to find. The opposing induction cancels it self out.

Quote
In actuality if you were able to hold the magnet Precisely ON the line there would not be a force in either direction as they would balance out,

the inducted flux from the right balances out close to zero.

If the magnet at the left would not be there the other magnet would ignore the strip entirely (try it)

BUT BUT! the moment flux IS inducted into the strip(by other means) the forces from the flux at the right do compliment each other.

You understand?

The magnet doesn't induct a field anymore but it does still have that field of it's own. So when we use other 3rd party means to induct a field into the strip THEN both of those fields can interact. They don't interact in a contradicting but in a complementary fashion.

The big discovery: The fact the magnet doesn't induct a field on it's domain wall doesn't mean it doesn't have a field of it's own. The moment we create a pole on this spot it will absolutely interact with the other poles.

A metal strip does nothing but holding a magnet on the domain wall creates torque.

Quote
but in practice you cannot find a line that infinetesimally small so you are more to one side than the other, which pushes the steel into either the N or the S field.

But it's easy to find, and it's easy to see how attraction drops off over 90 degrees. The induction and the magneto interaction are 2 different things you see? The interaction demands a field inducted into both bodies, but there is no rule that says it has to induct this field it~self. Any inducted field will do?

lol, I don't know how to explain this? I'm doing a horrible job? What do you think I'm talking about?  ::)
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: sm0ky2 on September 16, 2007, 09:35:56 PM
wha ti am saying is, if oyu have a free moving ferro-magnetic material that approaches a magnet on its domain-line, that line is infinitely smaller than the physical object you are approaching it with.
 in fact, you must apply considerable force (per flux line) to hold the object "on" that line. it wants to pull to one side or the other.

WHICH SIDE??  that depends on which side of hte line you are holding it on, you are ot holding it "on" the lline.

you cannot, not with your hands, and i doubt we could achieve this with an exact measured line, and computerized steppermotors..  especially if the mol count on one half of your metal object is greater than on the other. (mass dispursion) - which cannot be felt/seen without extremely sensitive equipment.

Whne you induce a secondary field into the ferromagnetic object, on the opposite end from the original magnet all you are doing is setting up opposing polarities within the length of the object.

If your secondary magnet is North side facing the bar, the end of the bar becomes south and tries to make the other end of the bar N.  Now if you are near the center of the poles of the first magnet the flux lines are not very dense, it may take a stronger magnet or a longer bar to overcome the effects of the secondary magnet. Once you get it arranged where the primary field actually effects the bar, then all you have is a S pole magnet near the center of the poles of the first magnet.  if you are slightly to the N side it will push to the S, if you are slightly to the S side it will pull towards that end.  If the secondary magnet produces stronger flux lines at the end of the bar that is nearest the first magnet, then the bar wont feel much effect at all. (assuming the bar is not physically attached to the second magnet.
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 01:30:44 AM
wha ti am saying is, if oyu have a free moving ferro-magnetic material that approaches a magnet on its domain-line, that line is infinitely smaller than the physical object you are approaching it with.

It's irrelevant, the strip moves over the domain wall from one pole to the other, losses are roughly equal to the gain. IT becomes a pole for a moment. That's all. Anywhere near the wall the inducted fields subtract but the forces are actually doubled. We get less induction and 2 times the magnetic force there.
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: xpenzif on September 17, 2007, 04:40:15 AM
you can just use a solid donut and hold the other magnet behind it it appears. Laminated would be better of course.

One question, on your definition of "laminated" do you mean laminated as in having layers of steel strips or, "laminated" as in you would coat the steel with a plastic or other material.
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 24, 2007, 07:07:46 PM
I was referring to just strips, I have no idea how a solid donut or coated strips would preform. I'm sure putting some coating on the strips is a good idea to try however. :)
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: Low-Q on September 24, 2007, 07:28:09 PM
Now I don't have the stuffs to test this theory.
If it hasn't been tested I wouldn't yet call it a theory.

Anyways, it would be nice if magnets worked like this, however I agree with sm0ky2 that the magnets should be attracted to the steel strips regardless of polarity. You can try this experiment to verify it:
(http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7161/magdi3.jpg)
The magnets will still be attracted to the steel regardless of the other magnet's presence.
At a critical distance between two equal poles, an iron plate between them will cancel out all forces by attracting to the magnets at the same time as the poles are repelling each other with equal force. If we call this state the "critical state", it should be possible to fight sticky points.

Br.

Vidar
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 25, 2007, 10:26:42 AM
Now I don't have the stuffs to test this theory.
If it hasn't been tested I wouldn't yet call it a theory.

Anyways, it would be nice if magnets worked like this, however I agree with sm0ky2 that the magnets should be attracted to the steel strips regardless of polarity. You can try this experiment to verify it:
(http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7161/magdi3.jpg)
The magnets will still be attracted to the steel regardless of the other magnet's presence.
At a critical distance between two equal poles, an iron plate between them will cancel out all forces by attracting to the magnets at the same time as the poles are repelling each other with equal force. If we call this state the "critical state", it should be possible to fight sticky points.

Harper's New Monthly Magazine (March 1879, pp. 601-605)

The way I see it sticky points are not the problem, the device needs to generate torque. If it gets stuck we can always put a flywheel on it or a row of flux laminators. :P
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: xpenzif on September 26, 2007, 01:12:21 AM
I'm sure putting some coating on the strips is a good idea to try however. :)
How would a coating help?

If it gets stuck we can always put a flywheel on it or a row of flux laminators. :P

A flywheel probably wouldn't help this design since you have to sacrifice energy to maintain the spin of the flywheel.
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 09, 2007, 04:40:05 AM
I'm sure putting some coating on the strips is a good idea to try however. :)
How would a coating help?

Look, you have to use something to separate the strips. Air is not the best magnetic insulator. I'm talking about trying things.

You are confused how trying things helps?

Quote
If it gets stuck we can always put a flywheel on it or a row of flux laminators. :P

A flywheel probably wouldn't help this design since you have to sacrifice energy to maintain the spin of the flywheel.

Look, if you don't understand why the flywheel is used then it doesn't mean it doesn't help.

What kind of help are you offering anyway?

Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: xpenzif on October 10, 2007, 05:48:11 AM
Look, you have to use something to separate the strips. Air is not the best magnetic insulator. I'm talking about trying things.

You are confused how trying things helps?

I guess you can "try" everything, and then find out that there's no such coating that can effectively insulate your steel strips from the magnetic field.

Look, if you don't understand why the flywheel is used then it doesn't mean it doesn't help.

What kind of help are you offering anyway?

Would I be of more help if I told you that all your ideas have no flaws and should not be questioned? ::)
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 10, 2007, 10:54:56 PM
Quote
Would I be of more help if I told you that all your ideas have no flaws and should not be questioned?

I would want you to cooperate with me so that we can build free energy machines. ;D Then you would be the most of help. Ideas should be expanded upon. Please use the other half of your brain.  8)

I try to explain my thoughts on the topic for a whole year but I have not found a good way to get my ideas across to anyone. I'm not the one doing something wrong here. I'm about as stubborn and in the face as a person can get.

IMHO the perpetual motion device seems to be the inferior discovery in this.

In this very~same sentence I prove your ideas really are fantastic xpenzif.  ::) Just build upon them rather then take them apart yourself. In this topic you should try to figure out why I think the fluxlaminator is an interesting device to study.  There is no point for me to try to advance my hypothesis in public if the replies are non constructive. but but but but .. as you can see I have fully engaged in this kind of pointless disclosure of my thoughts. Not so much to advance my theory but more to review the review process. If it was just me there would be nothing wrong. The thing is, the non constructive replies make it uninteresting for any researcher or inventor to share anything. 99% doesn't have a clue how brilliant their thoughts are. Your plan to tell people their idea has no flaws would be quite motivating. The researcher's effort depends fully on his or her motivation. Where the motivation comes from isn't important. You are free to motivate them as much as you like actually. This would actually work. You can stop questioning this though, there need not be found any flaws.  :)

You have constructed a prophetic self fulfillment closed loop assembly.

All you have to do is chant the mantra and it will work.

You are a genius!

 ::)
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 10, 2007, 10:55:19 PM
Quote
Would I be of more help if I told you that all your ideas have no flaws and should not be questioned?

I would want you to cooperate with me so that we can build free energy machines. ;D Then you would be the most of help. Ideas should be expanded upon. Please use the other half of your brain.  8)

I try to explain my thoughts on the topic for a whole year but I have not found a good way to get my ideas across to anyone. I'm not the one doing something wrong here. I'm about as stubborn and in the face as a person can get.

IMHO the perpetual motion device seems to be the inferior discovery in this.

In this very~same sentence I prove your ideas really are fantastic xpenzif.  ::) Just build upon them rather then take them apart yourself. In this topic you should try to figure out why I think the fluxlaminator is an interesting device to study.  There is no point for me to try to advance my hypothesis in public if the replies are non constructive. but but but but .. as you can see I have fully engaged in this kind of pointless disclosure of my thoughts. Not so much to advance my theory but more to review the review process. If it was just me there would be nothing wrong. The thing is, the non constructive replies make it uninteresting for any researcher or inventor to share anything. 99% doesn't have a clue how brilliant their thoughts are. Your plan to tell people their idea has no flaws would be quite motivating. The researcher's effort depends fully on his or her motivation. Where the motivation comes from isn't important. You are free to motivate them as much as you like actually. This would actually work. You can stop questioning this though, there need not be found any flaws.  :)

You have constructed a prophetic self fulfillment closed loop assembly.

All you have to do is chant the mantra and it will work.

You are a genius!

 ::)
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: xpenzif on October 11, 2007, 12:07:44 AM
There need not be found any flaws?
If I see a flawed design I will try to pinpoint the problem. This(hopefully) brings the problem to the creator's attention. The creator can then try to modify the design to avoid the problem, or he can call my findings "non constructive," ignore any comments that disagree with his design, and quite possibly build it, only to find out I was right.

As far as advancing your hypothesis in public, I see no problem with it. Quite often in research you end up proving your hypothesis wrong.

Anyways, if I told you your idea has no flaws I would be lying to you, and thus being non-constructive.
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 11, 2007, 08:00:21 AM
There need not be found any flaws?
If I see a flawed design I will try to pinpoint the problem.

It works the other way around. When you see any design then you start looking for things wrong with it. Of, course you are going to find things that are wrong if that is what you are looking for. Imagine what happens if you are only interested in finding things wrong about something? What happens if this is what the effort goes towards?  It's awfully boring to be at the receiving end of such. It's unprofessional enough to fear it.

Quote
This(hopefully) brings the problem to the creator's attention.

The only problem I can think of is all of us being dead in 10 years if we don't find an alternative fuel source,  petroleum is a completely unworkable tech. I figure we don't need additional imaginary problems, we need your solutions.

If you don't want to be dishonest you will need to grant this hypothetical device a minimal chance to work exactly as described until you understand how it exactly works. Then after that we look for ways to make it work better together. ;) Imagine what happens if you would in stead limit your effort to negative comments on the constructive efforts of others, your effort would work against your own goals. Not saying you are; any effort towards trying to shoot holes in stuff will accomplish just that and only that.  You would do much better if you would start searching for ways to improve a concept specially when it doesn't work. You will succeed at that just as easy as looking for problems. Find 1 "problem" at a time then you search for the answer yourself. The contrast between both aproaches should be very obvious, just stay focused on the end results.

You don't want to take the energy problem seriously until you personally suffer right? But are you not suffering already? I thought nature had warned us more then enough by now? We are in deep shit you know? And we cant really expect the rest of mankind to do anything sensible about it now can we? They pretty much gave up already? ha-ha?

Quote
The creator can then try to modify the design to avoid the problem,

I think you don't understand the device? Right? Until you and me have figured out a way to advance this it's just not a time for you to question it. I'm not saying you are not capable of finding 100 000 things wrong with everything you see. Heck, you can go with the sticky point stories, equilibriums, energy conservatoriums, noethren's thoerems. oh, there are so much "good excuses" for not making basic effort of understanding the topic. My personal favorite is calling the researcher a crackpot. It's one thing to think it but to actually find it worth to mention how one assumed something cant  work is just rude? The only result of such approach will be irritation.  Here science appears all to happy to leave all hope for mankind with the creators of half baked inventions while making life impossible for them amoung other factors on the long list of artifical anoyances. I really think that if one agues that blue is a pretty color then there must be other colors that are less pretty as blue. If my contraption ish no good, it's reasonable to ask in favor of what? Oil? Prayer perhaps? The after life? haha?

Quote
or he can call my findings "non constructive," ignore any comments that disagree with his design, and quite possibly build it, only to find out I was right.

It's cool for you to question the workings when you think you understand what I'm on about.

Quote
As far as advancing your hypothesis in public, I see no problem with it. Quite often in research you end up proving your hypothesis wrong.
You don't see anything wrong with the "What ever it is it's probably nothing" approach?  Peeps assume everything is probably nothing. To a very high degree it instantly becomes so. Why bother when it's nothing right? i sure wouldn't?? lol???
Quote
Anyways, if I told you your idea has no flaws I would be lying to you, and thus being non-constructive.
But just assuming flaws is also equal to lying. If you claim to have found a flaw you should describe it. Until you describe such with enough detail there are non. You are free to tell me the truth the way you observe it. So far: no flaws dectected.

overunity.com is like the top research website on the web, this obviously makes you the top researcher on this mud ball. This in it's turn means the whole world is depending on you to build them free energy machines. O well... you already know this of course, you just don't want to think about it. But lets not see you give up on us just jet mkay? 8)

ok, lets see you try focus for a moment....

you are here to find construction drawings for free energy devices (right?)

Well ok....

Q1) What does this specific inventor claim the fluxlaminator to be capable of?

Q2) How does this specific fluxlaminator device work?

Supply me with the information I need to clarify my explanation please.

Here are some links. It's my best guess for now.

Quote
PM FLUX SWITCH
ABSTRACT
Method of preventing magnetic flux from extending into a target material.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text?pm-flux-switch

Quote
3 POINT INTERACTION
ABSTRACT
Unleash complimentary reactions utilizing the subtraction of contradicting actions.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text/?3-point-interaction

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary
Wesley Gary

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/flux-switching
Flux Switching

Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: xpenzif on October 11, 2007, 09:15:34 AM
Yeah. You're right. Your device is flawless. You solved the elusive alternative fuel source. You saved the world. Good work gaby de wilde. Build it so we can all benefit. ::)
Title: Re: flux laminator
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 11, 2007, 03:08:06 PM
Yeah. You're right. Your device is flawless. You solved the elusive alternative fuel source. You saved the world. Good work gaby de wilde. Build it so we can all benefit. ::)
Well thank you, you are to kind xpenzif.

Lets make sure I have explained enough for you to understand it.

What does this specific inventor claim the fluxlaminator to be capable of?

How does this specific fluxlaminator device work?

please repeat the question in the answer. :)