Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83399
  • *Latest: SciAnt

  • *Total Posts: 510017
  • *Total Topics: 15198
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: using chess on magnetomechanics  (Read 6856 times)

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
using chess on magnetomechanics
« on: September 29, 2007, 06:19:46 PM »
With little success I've tried to explain my theories. This is as much caused by how bizarre they R as by how awful my explanation is.

In an effort to make things so bizarre things ends up full circle appearing as something else I would now like to explain how I think the permanent magnet motor is in fact available in the position on the board. We might not be in the advantage but the position is far from lost. Sure, Einstein would have ran away from the game long ago. I don't know about you but if I haven't lost yet I'm planning on winning. Running away is for losers. At least Einstein ran away based on conclusions derived from his own labor. Maybe Albert did have an insight into the game allowing him to see that it was lost, maybe I lack this insight. It's my opinion I should always respect the ability of my opponent to make weird moves. Nature is just about the weirdest opponent one could ever have a game with. Just stalling the game without making mistakes will eventually bring victory.

Anyone here who understands the game of chess on a reasonable level? I envision it would make it a lot less complicated to explain my theory and less complicated to understand and be an interesting thought experiment. Did I mention it doesn't cost anything? lol

 :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

using chess on magnetomechanics
« on: September 29, 2007, 06:19:46 PM »

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: using chess on magnetomechanics
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2007, 07:23:42 PM »
One thing a chess player would know is that moving 1 piece changes the entire position. The value of all other pieces changes dramatically. One can sacrifice a horse to capture a bishop. One may argue the game is still balanced as neither player has an advantage in material. (The equivalent of energy conservation.) But to the "expert" nothing could be further from the truth. The new position on the board means the trade granted one of the players an advantage. At best it makes it more difficult for both players. Even if the exchange ends the game in a draw one of the players clearly has the advantage given previous position. Any move not building towards a common goal will make the goal harder to reach. Useless trades do not exist, they are either bad or good moves. Finding the best move may be extremely hard. In contrast, pointing out the 3 or 4 candidates is remarkably easy. This means it's remarkably easy to discard the moves that rate far below best.

What in earths name I'm talking about? If you ducktape a hand full of magnets into a box with alternators, reed switches, coils, flywheels, bearings topped off with a several meters of whirling cable.... And you move 1 magnet, energise the coil, spin the flywheel or even so much as touch  the wire.... Then that changed the whole system!! It's short sighted to argue there is just a coil and a pm interacting. Any ever so slight movement of either current or mass in the system will affect the whole system.

Assuming you have all the Popsicle sticks and rubber bands in the right spot we have: action > reaction  Now it's time for our next move.  action > reaction > action >reaction etc etc, this we must learn to anticipate. We did make the assumption you had a workable position in the box. This is of course far from the truth. You will need to make actions to build such things, those actions will trigger reactions. You will try and learn something that doesn't work, you will try to correct which may eventually end~you~up playing one of those good moves. One good move doesn't win you the game tho. We did make the assumption you invested your best of efforts in it. This is of course another lie on my behalf. You will need to make the right actions triggering the right reactions eventually obtaining the right motivation.

Here we have the full metaphysical craziness of the open system. One person moving one object in the box may trigger global reactions affecting all other researchers, their work and everything else.

Some peeps want to argue the game is lost but physics says I can lift the same 100 tons an infinite number of times using the same energy. How fast it goes round seems to be an important factor for some people? You can use the energy as fast as you like? lol? You can drive up and down the hill as often as you desire not using any extra energy. Wax on > Wax off

No wonder the game looks lost if you treat the rest of the pieces on the board like friction. Cars use petrol to push away air while sailing is probably a 10 000++ year old tech.

You can thus drive up and down the hill and have energy left to power the house. There is no doubt about it. Just the solar panels can drive the thing uphill.

A car powered by friction is remarkably easy to engineer, all you have to do is stop calling the rest of the galaxy friction and anticipate the responses to your moves.

If David hamel can play the game up to flying crafts then you must surely be able to get a vehicle to move. Or are you still thinking about thinking about it? I think you better spend your time thinking about it, nothing can show you better if it's worth thinking about as thinking about it.

 :D

Offline Prophmaji

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
Re: using chess on magnetomechanics
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2007, 03:51:49 AM »
Einstein saw the truth, you can see it in his eyes. Just like Tesla's photos.

Both had no idea of how to get past the quandry presented by the human condition.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: using chess on magnetomechanics
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2007, 03:51:49 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: using chess on magnetomechanics
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2007, 04:02:46 PM »
Both E and T played the game with skill of historical importance. It seems however the audience is much to focused on the product of their accomplishments. Victor Schauberger managed to zoom out in the same way Einstein zoomed into things.

Einsteins findings where so much more complicated we couldn't even see if it was right anymore. Victors findings where so much more practical and realistic as anything Einstein ever came up with. E was a patent clerk but he didn't own a single patent.

Victor Schauberger was a hundred times the scientist Einstein was. But Victor was obliviated by the quandary. Why? What did he invent? It's not important I think? It's how did they manage to see things that where invisible to others?

Einstein knew his vision was just a projection of his thoughts. He knew much to be improved upon remained in his work. Einstein never said "all other peoples inventions that do not agree with my theory should be ignored and the inventors should be slandered until they accept the truth of my hypothesis for a fact" lol

But some how people interpret his work like this?  It shows how out of touch they are with the creative process that lurks behind the tool they are using. If everything that isn't established knowledge should be right out dismissed Einstein would have never made it onto the stage.
 :)

note:
Anyone who still wants to claim his findings where actually real should write a paper about it. Peeps seem to have waited for years for the first functional math doodle to appear. lol

http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/

The hoax has been exposed but we stil have no clue how the game works.  ;)

 

OneLink