Earthquake Prediction
William M Barnick x73638
>In article <1990Dec7.0...@demott.com> k...@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt)
>writes:
>
>> So, what's happened to Iben (wrong before) Browning? (I think that's
>>the guy's name). Anybody hear from/about him?
>
I heard his next prediction is (guess what !!!) the next full moon on
Dec 31. This sort of confused some experts, however, since a new moon
also has a strong pull on the earth (that will be on Dec 17).
We'll be watching.
A better question is where are all those numerologist? 1234567890 ???
Did anything happen on 12/3 at 4:56 on 1990 which accounts for the "78" ???
Guess not ...
See Ya ..
WMB
Kevin D. Quitt
So, what's happened to Iben (wrong before) Browning? (I think that's
the guy's name). Anybody hear from/about him?
--
_
Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq k...@demott.com
DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266
VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last
Duke McMullan n5gax
writes:
> So, what's happened to Iben (wrong before) Browning? (I think that's
>the guy's name). Anybody hear from/about him?
I heard on the news a couple of days ago that he's on vacation and unavailable
for comment.
Read into that whatever you wish.
d
--
Never argue with your wife when she's packing your parachute.
-- Anon.
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429r phon505-255-4642 ee53...@hydra.unm.edu
Rolf Meier
>Dec 31. This sort of confused some experts, however, since a new moon
>also has a strong pull on the earth (that will be on Dec 17).
>
This is not strictly correct.
The moon has its maximum effect on the earth when it is at perigee. I
believe this happens during full moon in this month during this year
(it precesses). This would mean that at new moon the effect is least,
with the moon at apogee.
What you are probably thinking of is the combined effect of the sun
and the moon, which of course is maximum at full moon and new moon.
However, with the moon at apogee during its alignment with the sun,
the effect is going to be less than at any other month, this event
occurring every month, year in, year out.
_____________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation
"Everything You Know Is Wrong"
David Tiberio
Today on PBS there was a guy who claimed there would be an earthquake
in California every 22 years. The show was taped in 1987. He predicted the
next quake for 88, but it happened in 89. The last quake was supposedly in
1956, then 34, etc. He said the epicenter was someplace called "Park Something"
AND AS FOR FREE ENERGY, :)
IT WILL NOT POWER YOUR HOUSE OR YOUR CAR.
I WILL MAKE ONE OVER VACATION, WHEN MY EXAMS ARE OVER AND WHEN I WILL BE
CLOSER THAN THE 400 MILE DISTANCE TO MY LOCAL SCIENCE DISTRIBUTER.
Now I want you all to think deeply for one moment. Imagine that you have
two strong magnets in your hands. Imagine that they have the same poles
facing each other. Imagine hopelessly trying to touch the surfaces that have
the same pole. Imagine to yourself "They are repelling. They are repelling.
They are repelling." Imagine that energy is being used to try to force the
surfaces together. Imagine that energy must be transfered somewhere. Now
release one of the magnets, and watch it fling uncontrollably out of your
hands. You can utilize the energy of a magnet for as long as the magnet has
magnetic properties.
It is real and it does work. OF COURSE THERE WILL BE FRICTION. In fact,
there will be thousands of times more friction in my model than in a model
that would be constructed by more advanced means. Air friction is irrelevant.
It works. If you don't understand how magnets repelling would cause kinetic
energy, then consult a physicist.
Paul Lalonde
>I heard his next prediction is (guess what !!!) the next full moon on
>Dec 31. This sort of confused some experts, however, since a new moon
>also has a strong pull on the earth (that will be on Dec 17).
Well, I have it on good grounds that there will be an earthquake somewhere
in the world on December 12th or 30th, but not both. This prediction from
my girlfriend's father. He does have a reasonable success rate at things
paranormal/selective memory. :-)
Paul
Paul A. Lalonde Internet: lal...@qucis.queensu.ca
Home Phone: (613)546-4713 Work Phone: (613)545-7100
"The only true law is that which leads to freedom"
- Richard Bach, _Jonathan Livingston Seagull_
Dan Mercer
I understand he would like to get in the Guinness Record Book for
receiving the most Sympathy Cards sooooo ... (:-)
--
Dan Mercer
NCR Network Products Division - Network Integration Services
Reply-To: mer...@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer)
"MAN - the only one word oxymoron in the English Language"
Pat Berry
> Now I want you all to think deeply for one moment. Imagine that you have
> two strong magnets in your hands. Imagine that they have the same poles
> facing each other. Imagine hopelessly trying to touch the surfaces that have
> the same pole. Imagine to yourself "They are repelling. They are repelling.
> They are repelling." Imagine that energy is being used to try to force the
> surfaces together. Imagine that energy must be transfered somewhere. Now
> release one of the magnets, and watch it fling uncontrollably out of your
> hands.
Why don't *you* think deeply, Mr. Tiberio? Imagine that *you* are
holding two magnets in the way that you describe--pole to pole, so that
you can feel them repelling. Now ask yourself: how did they get that
way? You grasped them in your hands and brought them together, *using
your muscles* to push against the magnetic repulsion.
Then release one of the magnets as you described doing. Yes, it flings
out of your hands. What does it do after that? Nothing. If you want
to repeat the experience, you have to pick up the magnet and force it
together with the other one, using more muscular effort to do so.
Now put down the magnets and pick up a steel bed spring. Compress it
with your hands and then release it. It flings uncontrollably out of
your hands! You can do this over and over but, as with the magnets, you
must use your muscles to put energy into the spring, or it won't work.
For a final experiment, pick up just one of the magnets. If you really
concentrate, you'll notice a mysterious force pulling the magnet
*straight down*. Release it, and it flings uncontrollably out of your
hands! (Scientists call this "falling".) You can do this over and
over, but you have to use your muscles each time to lift the magnet off
the ground before you can drop it again.
In all of these cases, the motive force is your own muscle power, stored
temporarily in another form. If you think muscle power is a miraculous
new energy source, you are not qualified to educate the rest of us about
elementary physics.
Pat Berry p...@ramona.Cary.NC.US
Berry p...@ramona.Cary.NC.US
Wilson Heydt
>
> Today on PBS there was a guy who claimed there would be an earthquake
>in California every 22 years. The show was taped in 1987. He predicted the
>next quake for 88, but it happened in 89. The last quake was supposedly in
>1956, then 34, etc. He said the epicenter was someplace called "Park Something"
Parkfield.
It's about half way between San Francisco and Los Angeles. There have
been eqathquakes around Richter 6.5 there *about* every 22 years for
the last century. The USGS is "predicting" (i.e. they expect the
trend to continue . . .) and quake for 1989, plus or minus 3 years and
have heavily instrumented that particular section of the San Andreas
Fault to see if they can spot precursor activity as part of their
ongoing efforts at earthquake prediction. All of this is from public
sources--nothing mysterious about what's going on. (*Why* it's going
on there in particular--I don't know, other than general
plate-tectonic sorts of things.) Any good, modern Geology text should
discuss the study.
There is *speculation* that the Great California Earthquake of 1859
(the Fort Tejon Quake) may have started as one of the recurring
Parkfield 'quakes that didn't stop at the south end of the Parkfield
segment of the fault. There is further speculation that this may
happen again--possibly the next time Parkfield lets go . . .
I make no claims that the speculation whould be taken seriously--only
that such speculation exists.
--Hal
=======================================================================
Hal Heydt | Practice Safe Government
Analyst, Pacific*Bell | Use Kingdoms
415-823-5447 | (seen on a bumper sticker)
w...@pbhya.PacBell.COM |
Edward Suranyi
>in California every 22 years. The show was taped in 1987. He predicted the
>next quake for 88, but it happened in 89. The last quake was supposedly in
>1956, then 34, etc. He said the epicenter was someplace called "Park Something"
It is true that there has been an earthquake at Parkfield on the San
Andreas fault about every 22 years for the last several centuries. But
that figure of 22 is only an average. The intervals between earthquakes
there have been as short as 10 years and as long as 40. Also, since
earthquakes are so common there, they are rarely very powerful --
magnitude six is typical. When I was a geology major (a long time ago),
I made a field trip to Parkfield. The signs of previous quakes are
exceptionally clear there -- parallel stream beds due to shifts of the
earth.
Incidentally, this has little, if anything, to do with the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake. Parkfield is much farther south -- about two-thirds
of the distance to Los Angeles.
As another poster said, if you consider the entire state of California
there are many earthquakes every year. It's just that few of them are
powerful enough to get national attention.
Ed Suranyi | "I couldn't hope to do it anywhere near as well
e...@das.llnl.gov | as Kate Bush because she is a Goddess."
(415) 447-3405 | -- Sinead O'Connor
Mark A. Haun
>
> Today on PBS there was a guy who claimed there would be an earthquake
> in California every 22 years. The show was taped in 1987. He predicted the
> next quake for 88, but it happened in 89. The last quake was supposedly in
> 1956, then 34, etc. He said the epicenter was someplace called "Park Something"
The place he was talking about is Parkfield, CA. There is a M6.0
quake there roughly every 22 years. Larger gaps have occurred,
though. The next one is already overdue by a few years, and is
expected at any time.
No quake happened there in '89; maybe they were talking about Loma
Prieta?
The USGS has placed hundreds of instruments in the Parkfield area
in order to get as much data as possible from the site of a quake
*before* the quake happens. Sites like Parkfield are rare -- most
places cannot be predicted as accurately.
--
Mark A. Haun / 3445 Del Mesa Ct. / Sacramento, CA 95821 / Phone: (916) 488-2965
UUCP: {ames | apple | att | sun}!pacbell!sactoh0!mahaun | Amateur Radio: KJ6PC
INTERNET: pacbell!sactoh0!mah...@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Amateur Pkt Radio: kj6pc@wa6nwe.#nocal.ca.usa -or- [44.2.0.56] on 144.93 Mhz
Peter Hyde
PL> Well, I have it on good grounds that there will be an earthquake
PL> somewhere in the world on December 12th or 30th, but not both. This
PL> prediction from my girlfriend's father. He does have a reasonable
PL> success rate at things paranormal/selective memory. :-)
Well, that's suitably imprecise to be a dead cert! Magnitude 2? 4? 6?
Here it is Dec 12th and I'm waiting...
cheers,
peter
--- Via Silver Xpress V2.27
* Origin: TONY'S BBS - Gateway to New Zealand. (3:770/101)
SEEN-BY: 770/101 771/110 150 170 772/20 50 60 140 774/501
FSC-Control: PATH: 770/101 772/20 771/170
Paul Callahan
>two strong magnets in your hands. Imagine that they have the same poles
>facing each other. Imagine hopelessly trying to touch the surfaces that have
>the same pole. Imagine to yourself "They are repelling. They are repelling.
>They are repelling." Imagine that energy is being used to try to force the
>surfaces together. Imagine that energy must be transfered somewhere. Now
>release one of the magnets, and watch it fling uncontrollably out of your
>hands. You can utilize the energy of a magnet for as long as the magnet has
>magnetic properties.
[add ":-)" to the next two paragraphs if you are exceptionally stupid]
Imagine you have a bow and arrow. Imagine you are pulling on the bowstring.
Imagine you let go. Suddenly the arrow flies away from the bow. That's
because of the *elasticity* (tm) of the bow. When the *elasticity* (tm)
runs out, no more energy. The bow doesn't work anymore.
Imagine you are standing by a building holding a brick. Imagine you climb up
some steps to the roof of the building. Imagine you let go of the brick.
Suddenly the brick flies away from your hand and heads toward the ground.
That's because of the *gravity* (tm) of the earth. When the *gravity* (tm)
runs out, no more energy. Things don't fall anymore.
I suggest that Mr. Tiberio learn something about the concept of POTENTIAL
ENERGY before making claims about what physicists will tell you about magnets.
Actually, ferromagnetism is a fairly complicated phenomenon, from what I've
heard, and I'm sure there is some energy associated with magnetizing a piece
of iron. However, this is *not* the energy that causes the magnet to fling
out of one's hand in the suggested experiment. The energy that gets converted
to kinetic energy is the energy it takes to push the magnets together. I.e.,
energy is transferred from one's muscles to the magnet system.
Even assuming ideal magnets that do not, under any circumstances, lose their
magnetism, one can analyze this experiment without violating the law of
energy conservation. Mr. Tiberio is confusing this ability of magnets to store
energy with the notion that they somehow convert their magnetism (whatever
that might entail) into kinetic energy. The phenomenon of storing energy by
pushing together two repelling magnets is analogous to storing energy by
compressing springs, or by stretching bows, or by moving objects away from a
gravitional source. No kinetic energy is created that was not put into the
system to begin with.
Originally, I was willing to believe that Mr. Tiberio may have built something
that did something (though not a perpetual motion machine). Now I can only
think that this is either a put-on (note the random ":)"'s he sometimes
includes) or that he has a bizarre faith in the mysterious power of magnets.
I encourage him to build his envisioned machine over vacation, as he keeps
claiming he will. Perhaps he'll learn something in the process.
--
Paul Callahan
call...@cs.jhu.edu
Tom Gray
>facing each other. Imagine hopelessly trying to touch the surfaces that have
>the same pole. Imagine to yourself "They are repelling. They are repelling.
>They are repelling." Imagine that energy is being used to try to force the
>surfaces together. Imagine that energy must be transfered somewhere. Now
>release one of the magnets, and watch it fling uncontrollably out of your
>hands. You can utilize the energy of a magnet for as long as the magnet has
>magnetic properties.
This energy is coming from the muscles in your arms. It is not coming from the
magnets.
Magnets do not create energy. Magnetic fields can be used to store energy.
However only a amount of energy can be stored in a magnetic field.
Imagine you are lifting a heavy weight away from the earth. Think - gravity
is attracting - gravity is attracting. The energy to lift the weights
comes from you not from gravity. You are transferring energy from the
chemical storage in your muscles to the gravitational potential energy
of the weight. You could use this gravitational potential energy to do
work. However this energy is finite.
A new mantra:
Force is not Energy
Force is not Energy
Force is not Energy
Dan Hartung
> Now I want you all to think deeply for one moment. Imagine that you have
>two strong magnets in your hands. Imagine that they have the same poles
>facing each other. Imagine hopelessly trying to touch the surfaces that have
>the same pole. Imagine to yourself "They are repelling. They are repelling.
>They are repelling." Imagine that energy is being used to try to force the
>surfaces together. Imagine that energy must be transfered somewhere. Now
>release one of the magnets, and watch it fling uncontrollably out of your
>hands. You can utilize the energy of a magnet for as long as the magnet has
>magnetic properties.
You have just said that your machine does not produce perpetual motion. It
produces motion that lasts as long as its source of energy, which is no
different than anything else in the world.
>It works. If you don't understand how magnets repelling would cause kinetic
>energy, then consult a physicist.
Everyone understands this. We've all played with magnets as kids. Some of
us have executive toys within reach that demonstrate the principles.
What we DON'T understand is how this produces "perpetual motion" as you have
claimed more than once.
I think you misunderstand what is meant by the term.
--
:;:;:;:;:;:;: Daniel A. Hartung :--------------------------
\Y/ \Y/ \Y/ ----------------------: dhar...@chinet.chi.il.us
| | | Birch Grove Software :--------------------------
William M Barnick x73638
>two strong magnets in your hands. Imagine that they have the same poles
>facing each other. Imagine hopelessly trying to touch the surfaces that have
>the same pole. Imagine to yourself "They are repelling. They are repelling.
>They are repelling." Imagine that energy is being used to try to force the
>surfaces together. Imagine that energy must be transfered somewhere. Now
>release one of the magnets, and watch it fling uncontrollably out of your
>hands. You can utilize the energy of a magnet for as long as the magnet has
>magnetic properties.
>
to disprove the properties of a good old compass. Take any clump of magnets
and arrange them in any manner you wish. The net affect of the *total*
magnetic field will point North/South (at which point motion stops). The
only way an electric motor works is because the direction of the poles
constantly changes. You do not have the luxury of changing poles with
plan old magnets and no electric field.
See Ya ...
WMB
Rolf Meier
> CLOSER THAN THE 400 MILE DISTANCE TO MY LOCAL SCIENCE DISTRIBUTER.
>
>energy, then consult a physicist.
I believe the effect is known as the release of potential energy, which came
from somewhere in the first place.
Write those exams, and get some experience in the real world before shooting
your mouth off.
If you don't understand your problem, then consult a psychiatrist.
___________________________________________________________________________
M. Edward Borasky
earthquakes in Central Japan last week?
David Tiberio
>What you have just described is an energy storage mechanism, NOT an energy
>source.
The point was that the magnets force each other apart. That is the energy
source. And everyone definitely does not understand exactly what it will do.
They ask if it will slow down or speed up, and that to prove that it works I
would have to check to see if it slows down. No I don't!
If it STARTS spinning all by itself, then I have proved that it is an energy
source.
>
>I'd suggest that you consult a physicist, or at least a physics text. What you
>have described in some of your previous postings is simply a flywheel. If this
>was accepted as a since project, it only points out the poor state of science
>education in this country.
It was not my actual science project; I ended up doing a computer circuit
board that produces speech on a c64. I also calculated waveforms and stuff.
>
>Below is a simple diagram of the type of "machine" you describe.
No it isn't.
>
> NN-----SS
> |
> |
> |
> |
> N | S
> N | S
> | | |
> | + |
> | | |
> S | N
> S | N
> |
> |
> |
> |
> SS-----NN
>
>A system of this type, if left unspun, would come to rest at the point where the
>repulsive forces balance out. But, if spun with enough power to overcome the
^^^^^^^ the key is to keep the repulsion unbalanced
>repulsion at the poles closest approach (look up "potential barrier") the
>rotor will continue to spin. Only until frictional losses lowers its
>momentum below that threshold will it stop spinning, and simply bounce back
>and forth until it comes to rest. However, in the absence of these losses
>(a frictionless pivot, spinning in a perfect vacuum, etc.) it would spin
>forever. Without your "free energy" source, too. So, the fact that you
>device continues to spin for a long time proves nothing. If you could show
>that the rotor machine accelerates (well your "free energy" has to go somewhere
>now doesn't it?) THEN you would have something that would start a revolution
>in science.
I don't have to prove that it accelerates, and I doubt that it will, although
I never measured that. All it has to do is start all by itself, when I release
my hand after finishing the assembly. :)
>
>--
>T.T.F.N.,
>dave truesdell (true...@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov)
>"Courage is the willingness of a person to stand up for his beliefs in the face
> of great odds. Chutzpah is doing the same thing wearing a Mickey Mouse hat."
David A. Truesdell
>In article <truesdel.660895856@sun418> true...@nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell) writes:
>>What you have just described is an energy storage mechanism, NOT an energy
>>source.
> The point was that the magnets force each other apart. That is the energy
>source. And everyone definitely does not understand exactly what it will do.
>They ask if it will slow down or speed up, and that to prove that it works I
>would have to check to see if it slows down. No I don't!
>
The point is, *YOU* had to force the magnets together *BEFORE* the magnets
could force each other apart. Your forcing the magnets together was the
energy source.
> If it STARTS spinning all by itself, then I have proved that it is an energy
>source.
No, you have not. If your device were to start spinning, with no energy input
from you or any other external power source, and it *continues* to rotate
through one full turn, then and only then will you have a chance at proving
that it is an energy source. Otherwise, all you have shown it that you have
forced your device into an unstable state, and that it is attempting to drop
back into a stable state. For an example, think of the diagram below, with the
rotor turned 45 degrees. When released, it too will start to turn, but it will
not make a full turn. Instead it will oscillate around the stable position,
until its motion decays leaving it in a stable state.
>>I'd suggest that you consult a physicist, or at least a physics text. What you
>>have described in some of your previous postings is simply a flywheel. If this
>>was accepted as a since project, it only points out the poor state of science
>>education in this country.
> It was not my actual science project; I ended up doing a computer circuit
>board that produces speech on a c64. I also calculated waveforms and stuff.
Terrific, so *YOU* don't know if it would work, you just think it would.
>>Below is a simple diagram of the type of "machine" you describe.
> No it isn't.
How is it different? You may *plan* on more magnets, and arranging them in
different locations, but how is your design really different? If you can't
produce a diagram, how about an example of your calculations? Let's see if
the math really works out.
[Diagram compressed to reduce followup size...]
>> NN-----SS
>> N | S
>> N | S
>> | + |
>> S | N
>> S | N
>> SS-----NN
>>
>>A system of this type, if left unspun, would come to rest at the point where the
>>repulsive forces balance out. But, if spun with enough power to overcome the
> ^^^^^^^ the key is to keep the repulsion unbalanced
But how do you plan on *keeping* the repulsion unbalanced, without an external
power source? The fields of the magnets will remain steady, so what keeps the
system from finding a stable state? You would have to show that the sum of
the forces attempting to turn the rotor in one direction exceed those
attempting to turn it in the other.
>> So, the fact that you
>>device continues to spin for a long time proves nothing. If you could show
>>that the rotor machine accelerates (well your "free energy" has to go somewhere
>>now doesn't it?) THEN you would have something that would start a revolution
>>in science.
>I don't have to prove that it accelerates, and I doubt that it will, although
>I never measured that. All it has to do is start all by itself, when I release
>my hand after finishing the assembly. :)
If you've never built it, *of course* you've never measured it! :-}
And, as I stated above, simply *starting* to turn is NOT good enough. It would
need to turn more than one full turn before you can make your claim. Just have
it turn past 360 degrees (if you can prove your hand didn't nudge it), but
less than that and you've proved nothing.
Pat Berry
> The point was that the magnets force each other apart. That is the energy
> source. And everyone definitely does not understand exactly what it will do.
The magnets will force each other apart only if you first force them
together. The same is true of the ends of a bedspring. In both cases,
the energy source is your muscles.
At least six people pointed that out to you, and you can't have missed
it. You're just ignoring that bit of information because it can't be
reconciled with your claims.
> >Below is a simple diagram of the type of "machine" you describe.
>
> No it isn't.
Interesting. When someone else posts a diagram of what you seem to be
describing, you can instantly tell that the diagram isn't right. But
people have asked you over and over to post YOUR diagram of this alleged
device, and you have not done so. I believe it's because you don't have
a diagram. You don't have a device. You're simply lying.
Prove me wrong. I dare you. All you have to do is post your plans and
let us verify them. If you don't have the plans now, give us a date
when you'll be able to post them.
Nothing could be simpler--*if* you're telling the truth.
Pat Berry p...@ramona.Cary.NC.US
Cameron Randale Bass
]Wasn't there a Volcano eruption in Japan a few days after his predication.
]Also didn't Japan experience a earthquake (5+) a few days ago.
Yes, probably. So what else is new? Japan (another big place
by the way) experiences 4's and 5's frequently. Japan (as well
as many places on the pacific rim) also frequently experiences
volcanism. Great prediction there.
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926
Cameron Randale Bass
[
[ The point was that the magnets force each other apart. That is the energy
[source. And everyone definitely does not understand exactly what it will do.
[They ask if it will slow down or speed up, and that to prove that it works I
[would have to check to see if it slows down. No I don't!
[
[ If it STARTS spinning all by itself, then I have proved that it is an energy
[source.
If this is not a hoax, this is truly ignorant. Repeat the mantra after
me
Conservation of energy, conservation of energy,
conservation of energy, conservation of energy.
If you or something else puts energy into the system, of course
it will begin spinning 'by itself'. If you do not, it will not. I repeat,
it will not, never, nohow, nowhere, nowhen, never begin moving
of its own accord without energy input.
I see you are at SUNY. There are many educated people there.
Try talking to some of them. When they finish laughing, they might
aid you further.
We in netland are certainly getting quite a chortle out of this.
[>
[>A system of this type, if left unspun, would come to rest at the point where the
[>repulsive forces balance out. But, if spun with enough power to overcome the
[ ^^^^^^^ the key is to keep the repulsion unbalanced
Neat trick. The only problem is that it cannot be done without
energy input. When the magnets act to release potential, energy
must be input to restore the potential (the imbalance in your
parlance). You cannot maintain an imbalance and extract net energy.
(Repeat conservation of energy sixty times and you will be closer to
nirvana my son).
[>now doesn't it?) THEN you would have something that would start a revolution
[>in science.
[
[ I don't have to prove that it accelerates, and I doubt that it will, although
[I never measured that. All it has to do is start all by itself, when I release
[my hand after finishing the assembly. :)
It is very clear that you know no physics. IF IT STARTS BY ITSELF, IT IS
ACCELERATING. But of course, that is beside the point. You have input
energy into any setup that starts spinning. That is the cause of the
acceleration.
Please, do us a favor and read the previous posters' words very
carefully. You are wrong, completely wrong, and the way to enlightenment
is through what has been said here.
Sullivan
|> I don't have to prove that it accelerates, and I doubt that it will, although
|> I never measured that. All it has to do is start all by itself, when I release
|> my hand after finishing the assembly. :)
You release a rock from your hand and it moves *by itself*.
Is this "free energy"? No, it is stored energy being released.
No different than the energy stored in a battery being released
in a child's toy. Your "free" energy gets stored in the process
of assembly.
Jim Sullivan
sull...@alw.nih.gov
Frank Tredeau
In article <1990Dec13....@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtib...@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>In article <truesdel.660895856@sun418> true...@nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell) writes:
>
>>What you have just described is an energy storage mechanism, NOT an energy
>>source.
[stuff deleted]
> If it STARTS spinning all by itself, then I have proved that it is an energy
>source.
Well, yes, it is an energy source once you've put energy into it
by forcing the poles of the magnets together.
In that sense, a bottle is a water source once you've put water
in it.
>
>>A system of this type, if left unspun,
>>would come to rest at the point where the
>>repulsive forces balance out. [stuff deleted]
> ^^^^^^^ the key is to keep the repulsion unbalanced
You will find that it can't be kept unbalanced without the occasional
'kick' of fresh energy from some outside source. Otherwise, I'd bet
your system will come to rest at a state of stable equilibrium.
I'd be willing to bet quite a lot.
>
[stuff deleted]
>
> I don't have to prove that it accelerates, and I doubt that it will, although
>I never measured that. All it has to do is start all by itself, when I release
>my hand after finishing the assembly. :)
If it starts 'all by itself', then it *has* accelerated.
But self-starting is not a requirement of a PM (or free energy) machine.
I'd be perfectly happy with a PM machine that needed a nudge to get
started. What is required is that, once started, that it keep going
(and going and going ...) *without the consuption of stored energy*
and *without the consuption of energy from an outside source*.
It must do this in spite of the fact that it's motion is producing
heat (however minute).
If you have built a magnetic wheel-of-fortune, then
I hope you have fun with it, but you won't
get any energy out of it that wasn't put in. No free energy.
Which brings me to a previous topic.
In one of your earlier posts, you implied that you thought your gizmo
would eventualy de-magnitize it's magnets, thereby consuming their
energy. Or maybe the cause and effect were reversed (if this
is incorrect, please forgive me). The way I understand it, your gizmo
works by continuously storing and releaseing energy in the
magnetic fields of magnets. First, I've worked quite a bit with magnetic
materials and I assure you this type of action will not de-magnetize
a permanent magnet. Second, and more fundamentally, what if this
were true? Would this be 'free energy'? You would be tapping the
magnets for energy that was stored when the magnets were created.
Again, no free energy.
So, I'll leave you with two pieces of advice. First, stop reading
this shit and study for your exams. Second, don't waste your
hard earned vacation trying to make water flow uphill (water can
be made to flow uphill, but it takes a lot of energy).
Frank Tredeau Concurrent Computer Corp.
sez me
David Tiberio
>dtib...@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>
>> The point was that the magnets force each other apart. That is the energy
>> source. And everyone definitely does not understand exactly what it will do.
>
>The magnets will force each other apart only if you first force them
>together. The same is true of the ends of a bedspring. In both cases,
>the energy source is your muscles.
>
>At least six people pointed that out to you, and you can't have missed
Including email, I put that figure at more like 15.
>it. You're just ignoring that bit of information because it can't be
>reconciled with your claims.
Yes it can.
>
>> >Below is a simple diagram of the type of "machine" you describe.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
>Interesting. When someone else posts a diagram of what you seem to be
>describing, you can instantly tell that the diagram isn't right. But
Exactly. I have a brain that is able to create images in my mind of how
objects in the world look like. However, a text file does not really do a
good job for two reasons:
a) the obvious reason
b) it requires a 3 dimensional diagram...that is why I am working on a
3D rendering of my design plus other designs I have thought about.
>people have asked you over and over to post YOUR diagram of this alleged
>device, and you have not done so. I believe it's because you don't have
^^^^^^^^^ good for you!
>a diagram. You don't have a device. You're simply lying.
I am not lying. I never said that I have a device. As I said before, I
last worked on it 5 or 6 years ago, and it wasn't really that great. I
didn't bring it to school with me either.
>
>Prove me wrong. I dare you. All you have to do is post your plans and
>let us verify them. If you don't have the plans now, give us a date
>when you'll be able to post them.
Sure...I can probably post them January 25th, or maybe Decmeber 31st if I
can find a UNIX from my house. I think the local university has a unix system
I may be able to log onto.
But then again, if it is ready and working, I will send out working models
to all of the kind people who have helped me discuss it. And my grandfather
gets one too.
>
>Nothing could be simpler--*if* you're telling the truth.
>
>Pat Berry p...@ramona.Cary.NC.US
I don't want to discuss this anymore (he said sarcastically). I will not
tell you exactly how it is built until it is built. I will not say specific
words that will let you know what it looks like and specifically what parts
I am using. I will not make a diagram for this UNIX until I have proved to
people with their own eyes that it works.
I have told many people what the basic design is because they were either
interested, or they understood why I think it can work. Giving it to you
is the same as giving my parakeet to my dog.
And even if I posted a diagram right here, I would have to rely on each
person building his own. Some people might get it to work, some won't. Then
those who can't get it to work will assume that it is impossible, and pick
on those who say that it can work. I will gladly build models that work;
when people open the package from the UPS, it will be spinning already. They
will then examine it closely and say "neat" or "cool". Others, however, will
insist that there are batteries hidden somewhere, even though it will be clear
that the spinning magnets are only connected by a thin rod at a tiny pivot
point (unless I by pre-assembled shafts).
:)
David Tiberio
>>>A system of this type, if left unspun,
>>>would come to rest at the point where the
>>>repulsive forces balance out. [stuff deleted]
>> ^^^^^^^ the key is to keep the repulsion unbalanced
>
>You will find that it can't be kept unbalanced without the occasional
>'kick' of fresh energy from some outside source. Otherwise, I'd bet
>your system will come to rest at a state of stable equilibrium.
If the repulsion of a small magnet can bend steel, or make it twist, then
you may be right.
The magnets will never be in a state of equilibrium.
>I'd be willing to bet quite a lot.
I'd be rich!
>>
> [stuff deleted]
>>
>> I don't have to prove that it accelerates, and I doubt that it will, although
>>I never measured that. All it has to do is start all by itself, when I release
>>my hand after finishing the assembly. :)
>
>If it starts 'all by itself', then it *has* accelerated.
'has accelerated', 'is accelerting'. What's the difference? When I drive my
car, I accelerate to 90mph then for some unknown reason it just stops
accelerating and won't go any faster (he said sarcastically).
>But self-starting is not a requirement of a PM (or free energy) machine.
Yes, in this case it is. You need energy to get it to start. Maybe I chose
the wrong name for my device, but that shouldn't mean that it won't work. In
fact, I thought about naming it Gene.
>I'd be perfectly happy with a PM machine that needed a nudge to get
>started. What is required is that, once started, that it keep going
>(and going and going ...) *without the consuption of stored energy*
>and *without the consuption of energy from an outside source*.
Exactly.
>It must do this in spite of the fact that it's motion is producing
>heat (however minute).
Eventually the pivot point of the spinning magnet would wear out. Friction
will always make it wear out eventually. I would be happy if it lasted for
a few years. I could always replace the pivot.
> If you have built a magnetic wheel-of-fortune, then
>I hope you have fun with it, but you won't
>get any energy out of it that wasn't put in. No free energy.
Good point. The energy won't be free, now that I think of it. It will
probably cost at least $10 for the magnets.
>Which brings me to a previous topic.
>In one of your earlier posts, you implied that you thought your gizmo
>would eventualy de-magnitize it's magnets, thereby consuming their
>energy. Or maybe the cause and effect were reversed (if this
>is incorrect, please forgive me). The way I understand it, your gizmo
I understand how I may have misled everyone. I was asking people if they
knew how long a magnet will have magnetic properties. I seem to remember
being told in physics class that certain types of magnets will be stronger
and will last longer. I wanted to know if a magnet 'naturally' loses its
magnetic properties. I didn't mean that the energy would be used up by my
device.
>works by continuously storing and releaseing energy in the
>magnetic fields of magnets. First, I've worked quite a bit with magnetic
>materials and I assure you this type of action will not de-magnetize
>a permanent magnet.
I want to know how permanent a magnet is. Will it be magnetic forever, or
maybe a few thousand years? Just curious. :)
>
>Frank Tredeau Concurrent Computer Corp.
> sez me
Well, at my music concert tonight I spoke to a teacher before we had to
perform, and here is what happened:
I made a small scale model of my device, knowing that he knew that each
item represents a magnet (I couldn't convince him that matchbooks can repel
each other).
Seriously, though, he knew exactly what I intended to do. He told me that
it wouldn't work because things in the world just don't work that way. He also
said he wouldn't "bet the house on it".
But, he did say that it is an interesting design that he had never seen
before, and that it would be just as interesting to figure out why it
wouldn't work. He used many of the reasons that you people have been using, and
they just don't apply in this case. That is what makes it important; it
would be just as much of a discovery to figure out why it WON'T work. Coming
to you from a college professor who graduated from MIT.
Oh, and I cam up with another new idea to improve it, too. :)
David A. Truesdell
>>>>A system of this type, if left unspun,
>>>>would come to rest at the point where the
>>>>repulsive forces balance out. [stuff deleted]
>>> ^^^^^^^ the key is to keep the repulsion unbalanced
>>
>>You will find that it can't be kept unbalanced without the occasional
>>'kick' of fresh energy from some outside source. Otherwise, I'd bet
>>your system will come to rest at a state of stable equilibrium.
> If the repulsion of a small magnet can bend steel, or make it twist, then
>you may be right.
> The magnets will never be in a state of equilibrium.
You keep repeating this over and over, but you never manage to explain why
they would never be in equilibrium.
>>But self-starting is not a requirement of a PM (or free energy) machine.
> Yes, in this case it is. You need energy to get it to start. Maybe I chose
>the wrong name for my device, but that shouldn't mean that it won't work. In
>fact, I thought about naming it Gene.
Maybe you should call it "phlogiston". :-)
> Well, at my music concert tonight I spoke to a teacher before we had to
>perform, and here is what happened:
Well, at least you're not going into computer science. You seem to lack the
ability to be self-critical, which is important. :-)
> I made a small scale model of my device, knowing that he knew that each
>item represents a magnet (I couldn't convince him that matchbooks can repel
>each other).
Amazing how hard it is to find real magnets around a university. If you had,
found some, you could have shown him a working model.
> Seriously, though, he knew exactly what I intended to do. He told me that
>it wouldn't work because things in the world just don't work that way. He also
>said he wouldn't "bet the house on it".
> But, he did say that it is an interesting design that he had never seen
>before, and that it would be just as interesting to figure out why it
>wouldn't work.
I think you missed his point. It would be a good exercise for *YOU* to go
over your design and see if you have made any invalid assumptions about the
behavior of magnets, and magnetic fields.
> He used many of the reasons that you people have been using, and
>they just don't apply in this case.
Why don't they. (And stop repeating "never in equilibrium" until you give a
reason.)
> That is what makes it important; it
>would be just as much of a discovery to figure out why it WON'T work. Coming
>to you from a college professor who graduated from MIT.
Again, why don't *YOU* figure out why it wouldn't work. You would end up
discovering a fair bit about physics, and something about yourself.
> Oh, and I cam up with another new idea to improve it, too. :)
Oh joy, another new *untested* idea, to improve a gadget that never existed...
Mathemagician
[quoting someone else]
>>You will find that it can't be kept unbalanced without the occasional
>>'kick' of fresh energy from some outside source. Otherwise, I'd bet
>>your system will come to rest at a state of stable equilibrium.
> If the repulsion of a small magnet can bend steel, or make it twist, then
>you may be right.
> The magnets will never be in a state of equilibrium.
What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying that because
your metal pivot pivots, then the magnets will never reach a state of
equilibrium?
Won't wash.
Due to the finite number of magnets, there is either a point of
equilibrium or a cycle of points to which the pivot will swing.
However, each swing causes a loss of energy which causes a change
in the system and a loss of a point in the cycle.
Eventually, you will end up with one point of equilibrium.
--
Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
Mike Uhing
I have used the powers of ESP to probe into the mind of Mr. Tiberio,
and I will now post the plan for his so called free energy machine.
(By the way - if the following plan does not turn out to be the
"real thing" then feel free to count it as anecdotal evidence against
the validity of extra-sensory-perception)
In any case, I want to know why the following will not work:
Say we have magnets positioned diagonally (with all of them having,
say, north pointing upwards) arranged in a circle. (to clarify, when
I say upwards I mean upwards, but at an angle)...We would have a
string of magnets in this fashion: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, spread around
a circle, with the angles a little less severe (the magnets would not
stand up as much as the ascii depiction above) Now, at the center of
this circle we have a pivot and a shaft like a clocks hand connected.
(There would be a number of shafts spreading outward from the center)
Each shaft also has a magnet, positioned diagonally, this time with
the arbitrary north facing downward. So, if a shaft is directly over
one of the fixed-position magnets, they will oppose and there will
be circular motion. Thus:
N\ ---> moves
\N
The only question seems to be, will this motion
be enough to carry the rotating assembly over to where a magnet on
top and a magnet on the bottom are again opposing each other, thus
carrying on the motion.
I presume the rotation will get stuck somewhere, but I can't imagine
why this has to be. I am still unclear as to the power of magnets.
Some have stated that "the magnets fly apart only because energy
from someones arms was transfered to the magnets when touching them
together" Clearly untrue (?) but implied, was the notion that if
one did a whole lot of work (held the magnets together for an hour
for instance) the magnets would fly further apart. Clearly the
magnets could not have had the chance to fly apart if not for the
expenditure of energy done to hold them together - that took
some energy to do - but this energy from someones arms does not
really or fully account for the energy displayed by magnets flying
apart - the energy to do this was implicit in the magnets. I know
I am getting sort of obvious here...everyone realizes that the
same amount of energy can be used to squish together two books
as was used to squish together magnets, yet the result is different.
As a further example of whatever I'm trying to say here, say I
use some energy to bring two opposite sided magnets to within
an inch or so and let one of them go.
They fly together...in other words within the effective range
of a magnets field, its own "power" took over and caused it to
move.
As a final question I would like to know how long a magnet
could stay airborn if it was positioned above another magnet
such that they are repelling one another. It is hard to balance
one on top of another I know, but if something would be build
in such a fashin that a circle of magnets all facing inwards
with the same polarity was on the bottom and floating above it
was the same thing, but in a smaller circumference and with
the same pole facing down...this would seem to be balanced.
Assuming this could be done (I think that some trains use this
principle but require electricity), then energy is being expended
in order to keep the group of magnets on top air born. Will the
magnets finally lose their magnetic properties, or do they have
infinite energy? Does anything in this post make sense?
Mike
(Mike Uhing - 252u...@fergvax.unl.edu)
Don Johnson
>>dtib...@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>>
>
> And even if I posted a diagram right here, I would have to rely on each
>person building his own. Some people might get it to work, some won't. Then
>those who can't get it to work will assume that it is impossible, and pick
>on those who say that it can work.
Sounds a bit like Pons and Fleishman(sp?) ehh???
Why doesn't everyone quit badgering this adolescent and let him finish the
9th grade.
JOSEPH T CHEW
>Wasn't there a Volcano eruption in Japan a few days after his predication.
>Also didn't Japan experience a earthquake (5+) a few days ago.
If I recall the statistics correctly from an article on Iben Browning's
"prediction" of the Loma Prieta quake, there's a magnitude 6+ quake somewhere
in the world about every three days. Fives would be a heck of a lot more
common, though I hesitate to put a number on it. Unless they occur in a
populated Western area, or in a Third World setting where some number of
people die, only geo dweebs ever hear about them.
As your definition of a quake gets smaller they get more frequent all the
way down to the (literal) noise level. I don't know as much about volcanism,
but one would expect to see similar scaling, and certainly there are parts of
Japan where people just learn to live with a volcano that burps up fairly
often.
If I were the Big Building Inspector in the Sky, I'd fail the whole planet.
That's one of the real reasons why the experts want date, locus, and magnitude
before they give you credit for a "prediction" -- there's always _something_
going on, so if your prediction is vague enough, you're always right.
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Pat Berry
> Say we have magnets positioned diagonally (with all of them having,
> say, north pointing upwards) arranged in a circle. (to clarify, when
> I say upwards I mean upwards, but at an angle)...We would have a
> string of magnets in this fashion: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, spread around
> a circle, with the angles a little less severe (the magnets would not
> stand up as much as the ascii depiction above) Now, at the center of
> this circle we have a pivot and a shaft like a clocks hand connected.
> (There would be a number of shafts spreading outward from the center)
> Each shaft also has a magnet, positioned diagonally, this time with
> the arbitrary north facing downward. So, if a shaft is directly over
> one of the fixed-position magnets, they will oppose and there will
> be circular motion. Thus:
> N\ ---> moves
> \N
Won't work. The energy required to move the magnets to their closest
approach is equal to the energy released by the repulsion. Taking the
effect of friction into account, it's a net loss.
> Some have stated that "the magnets fly apart only because energy
> from someones arms was transfered to the magnets when touching them
> together"
No, touching them together has nothing to do with it. The act of
moving the magnets toward each other requires you to work against the
magnetic repulsion, and some of the energy you expend is stored in the
magnetic field.
> Clearly untrue (?) but implied, was the notion that if
> one did a whole lot of work (held the magnets together for an hour
> for instance) the magnets would fly further apart.
That was not implied and is clearly not true. Suppose you lift a brick
four feet and then drop it. Now lift it four feet, hold it there for an
hour, and then drop it. Does it fall faster or hit harder? Of course
not.
Besides, holding an object motionless is not "work" in physics.
> As a further example of whatever I'm trying to say here, say I
> use some energy to bring two opposite sided magnets to within
> an inch or so and let one of them go.
> They fly together...in other words within the effective range
> of a magnets field, its own "power" took over and caused it to
> move.
The magnet's power did not "take over"; it was in effect from the
start, and you had to work against to bring the other magnet to the
point where you released it.
You seem to think that you can sneak up on a magnet somehow, and that it
won't start repelling until it notices you are there. Obviously, that's
ridiculous.
> As a final question I would like to know how long a magnet
> could stay airborn if it was positioned above another magnet
> such that they are repelling one another.
Indefinitely. Such racks are easy to build.
> Assuming this could be done (I think that some trains use this
> principle but require electricity), then energy is being expended
> in order to keep the group of magnets on top air born.
No, no energy is being expended. No work is being done.
Pat Berry p...@ramona.Cary.NC.US
Wilson Heydt
>source.
*Sigh.* What you state will prove no such thing. Consider--if I
build a conventional motor and attach bateries through a time-delayed
switch, the motor will start turning "all by itself." That the
batteries are plainly present just goes to show what the real energy
source is.
What we (or and least, I) are asking for is some demonstration that
net energy is produced to support your claim. Our counterclaim is
that no such thing will happen because we consider the Laws of
Thermodynamics to be close enough to absolute proof to be trust worthy
in saying that no such device *can* work as claimed.
If you build your device and it truly works as claimed--you will have
violated one or more of the Laws of Thermodynamics. If you can put
for a theory that explains the results (and is consistent with all
other know phenomena that bear on the subject) that permits the
effects you are claiming, then you'll probably get to take a very nice
trip to Sockholm and meet the King of Sweden who will give you a dandy
gold medal and lots of money. However--if I were you, I wouldn't hold
my breath waiting for this to happen.
In common with the claims of paranormal experiences, you are making
extraordinary claims--and we're looking for extraordinary evidence.
David Tiberio
>In article <1990Dec14.0...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtib...@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>[quoting someone else]
>>>You will find that it can't be kept unbalanced without the occasional
>>>'kick' of fresh energy from some outside source. Otherwise, I'd bet
>>>your system will come to rest at a state of stable equilibrium.
>
>> If the repulsion of a small magnet can bend steel, or make it twist, then
>>you may be right.
>> The magnets will never be in a state of equilibrium.
>
>What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying that because
>your metal pivot pivots, then the magnets will never reach a state of
>equilibrium?
I am saying that unless a magnet is powerful enough to bend steel, then the
magnets will always be within 1/8 of an inch from each other.
>Won't wash.
You should try Teflon.
>Due to the finite number of magnets, there is either a point of
>equilibrium or a cycle of points to which the pivot will swing.
>However, each swing causes a loss of energy which causes a change
>in the system and a loss of a point in the cycle.
>
>Eventually, you will end up with one point of equilibrium.
No I won't. No matter where the center magnet starts, it will be repelled.
No matter what path it takes (of the one path to choose from), it will always
be repelled. You have to see what it looks like to understand it.
Cameron Randale Bass
]>It must do this in spite of the fact that it's motion is producing
]>heat (however minute).
]
] Eventually the pivot point of the spinning magnet would wear out. Friction
]will always make it wear out eventually. I would be happy if it lasted for
]a few years. I could always replace the pivot.
You have plenty of other things in any potential setup that
will (not might, but will) drain energy from the system including,
but not limited to, air resistance, flexibility of supports .....
But of course, this has been pointed out to you before, ad infinitum.
]
] I understand how I may have misled everyone. I was asking people if they
]knew how long a magnet will have magnetic properties. I seem to remember
]being told in physics class that certain types of magnets will be stronger
]and will last longer. I wanted to know if a magnet 'naturally' loses its
]magnetic properties. I didn't mean that the energy would be used up by my
]device.
No joke. But pray tell exactly where the energy is coming from?
Pixies?
] Well, at my music concert tonight I spoke to a teacher before we had to
]perform, and here is what happened:
A teacher of what? Music?
] Seriously, though, he knew exactly what I intended to do. He told me that
]it wouldn't work because things in the world just don't work that way. He also
]said he wouldn't "bet the house on it".
] But, he did say that it is an interesting design that he had never seen
]before, and that it would be just as interesting to figure out why it
]wouldn't work. He used many of the reasons that you people have been using, and
]they just don't apply in this case. That is what makes it important; it
]would be just as much of a discovery to figure out why it WON'T work. Coming
]to you from a college professor who graduated from MIT.
Why exactly does conservation of energy not apply? Because you don't
want it too? Yes, it sure would be important if it did not apply,
but it has everywhere else in the universe, so why not in your house?
And the importance of why it does not work might be of interest
to someone who does not understand physics, but many of us have
told you exactly why it will not work. Examining in detail why
such a nonexistent setup does not work is extremely tautalogous.
Finally, who gives a flying flip if your professor comes from MIT?
Most high school physics students could tell you why such a
setup will not work.
] Oh, and I cam up with another new idea to improve it, too. :)
Can you say garbage can? Sure, I knew you could.
Ken Shirriff
>Some have stated that "the magnets fly apart only because energy
>from someones arms was transfered to the magnets when touching them
>together" Clearly untrue (?) but implied, was the notion that if
>one did a whole lot of work (held the magnets together for an hour
>As a further example of whatever I'm trying to say here, say I
>use some energy to bring two opposite sided magnets to within
>As a final question I would like to know how long a magnet
>could stay airborn if it was positioned above another magnet
> Will the magnets finally lose their magnetic properties, or do they have
The answers are:
(1) It doesn't take any more work to hold the magnets together for an hour.
(2) It takes work to separate the magnets in this case.
(3) Forever.
(4) They don't have infinite energy, but they will remain floating forever.
(5) Most of your questions result from confusing force and energy.
Remember the Reebok commercials:
Force = Mass * Acceleration
Work = Force * Distance
Energy = ability to do work
If the force doesn't act through any distance, no work gets done.
As a simple example:
Suppose I hang a 1 kilogram weight from the ceiling with a rope. The
rope exerts a force of 1kg x G (= 10N) on the weight to hold it up.
The object doesn't move any distance, so no work gets done.
If I lift the object to the ceiling, I am moving it through a distance
and am doing work.)
Likewise, if the object is levitated by magnets (e.g. take two O shaped
magnets and put a vertical pencil through the middle) it will stay levitated
forever and no work gets done, so no energy is expended.
Note that if you try holding a 1 kg weight for an hour you will get tired
and think you're expending energy. This is because your arm shakes a bit,
so you keep having to lift the object, say by 1mm. Each time you do this
you are doing work (force through distance). However, if you could keep
your arm perfectly still, you wouldn't do any work and wouldn't expend any
energy. (This is why it doesn't really take any work to hold the magnets
together for an hour. The only work is done in bringing them together
(force times distance).)
The take-home message of all this is: Work = force x distance. Huge forces
don't require any energy if they don't move anything.
Ken Shirriff shir...@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
Cameron Randale Bass
> No I won't. No matter where the center magnet starts, it will be repelled.
>No matter what path it takes (of the one path to choose from), it will always
>be repelled. You have to see what it looks like to understand it.
Agreed. It does not have to come to any equilibrium that you would
recognize offhand as such. But without being 'kicked' (and fairly
frequently), it will equilibrate in the HALTED POSITION. I repeat,
it will come to a full stop. With every repelling move, the system
WILL lose total kinetic and potential energy. And not over a period of
months either.
Let me try this again. YOU ARE WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
WRONG. No matter how you arrange the magnets, such a system will
stop fairly soon. You can prolong the agony, but you cannot prevent
energy drain of friction, air resistance, etc.... Without
energy input, your make-believe toy will not continue.
Since you are apparently a musician, let me put it this way. Conceptually
a magnet system is no different from a plucked string. No matter
how clever you are in the design of a system of strings, the tone
stops. If it didn't, imagine the cacophony. Come to think of it,
maybe YOU are a perpetual motion machine.
Mathemagician
>>What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying that because
>>your metal pivot pivots, then the magnets will never reach a state of
>>equilibrium?
> I am saying that unless a magnet is powerful enough to bend steel, then the
>magnets will always be within 1/8 of an inch from each other.
So you are saying that these are relatively weak magnets. Again, my
question is, why does this imply there is no state of equilibrium?
Differential equations show that it doesn' matter how strong the
magnets are. There is a stable position.
>>Due to the finite number of magnets, there is either a point of
>>equilibrium or a cycle of points to which the pivot will swing.
>>However, each swing causes a loss of energy which causes a change
>>in the system and a loss of a point in the cycle.
>>Eventually, you will end up with one point of equilibrium.
> No I won't. No matter where the center magnet starts, it will be repelled.
>No matter what path it takes (of the one path to choose from), it will always
>be repelled. You have to see what it looks like to understand it.
But that doesn't mean that the force of repelling is *always*
unstable. That there are a finite number of magnets indicates
that there is a point of stability when you consider that they
are in a circle. This is differential equations. Depending
on the strength and position of the magnets in the circle, there
is a point of stability (if one magnet (or set of magnets near
each other) is strong enough to overpower the others, then the
pivot will float at a stable point that depends on the length
of the pivot.)
Timothy Yiu
>252u...@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Uhing) writes:
>
[mike's description deleted..]
>
>Won't work. The energy required to move the magnets to their closest
>approach is equal to the energy released by the repulsion. Taking the
>effect of friction into account, it's a net loss.
I couldn't resist coming out of the shadow. (Was following this thread
since the beginning).
Pat, should have taken this to the next step which is that with the
minute losses of energy, it will eventually settle. "Where?" one might
ask. It will be where one superior (the one above) N pole will rest
equidistant to two inferior (lower) poles.
Described another way, if one pictures the magnets as arranged by Mike, and
if one were to imagine the lines of flux emanating from the N pole, they are
curved continuous lines. If you can imagine the curved lines of flux
forming little hills and valleys, then the machine will rest in the
valleys.
If given initial angular momentum, it will rotate for a while.
Nice try Mike, but this is really a neat way to reduce friction (lateral
friction of the moving rings, not the rotational friction of the shaft),
but it's by no means a PM.
Anyways, I vote with Marc. Let's quit baiting Tiberio until he comes up
with a working machine, or an explanation of why it doesn't work.
Tim
/(C Tim Yiu
>{{{{:< ty...@smdvx1.intel.com
\(C "Cogito Ergo Spud" - I think therefore I yam.
Kristoffer Eriksson
> N\ ---> moves
> \N
>
>The only question seems to be, will this motion
>be enough to carry the rotating assembly over to where a magnet on
>top and a magnet on the bottom are again opposing each other, thus
>carrying on the motion.
You should take all the magnets into account together (or at least all
that are near moving part), not just one at a time as in the above
depiction.
N\
\N \N \N
1 2 3
There should exist a point between each pair of magnets, for instance 2 and
3, where they both excert equal forces on the moving magnet. After all, the
magnets don't need to be pointed strait towards each other to feel each
others magnetism. You will have to take the south poles into account too,
and probably also a few more magnets on flanking the inner pair to find
the exact point of equilibrium, but it should be there somewhere. That's
a point where the moving magnet can settle down when it has lost it's
kinetic energy due to friction. Well, not really "down"; it will keep
hanging in the air, and it will be quite easy to disturb it enough to make
it move to a new place, for instance through air currents, but it will come
to a halt.
There is no energy expended by the magnet hanging in the air. It doesn't
really hang there completely without support: it is supported by the
other magnets and their magnetism below it. This does not expend energy.
And it is really the same mechanism that keeps us all from sinking into
the earth towards the center of the planet, except that in that case it
is mostly the electric repulsion that is acting in place of magnetic
repulsion. We don't really "touch" the ground, or rather, the only things
that are touching are the electrostatic forces between electrons of our
bodies (or clothes) and electrons of the ground. That is what keeps the
whole planet from shrinking into a black hole under the force of gravity.
> - but this energy from someones arms does not
>really or fully account for the energy displayed by magnets flying
>apart -
It does.
> the energy to do this was implicit in the magnets. I know
>I am getting sort of obvious here...everyone realizes that the
>same amount of energy can be used to squish together two books
>as was used to squish together magnets, yet the result is different.
Take a stone and through it forcefully at another bigger stone or rock.
The stone bounces back. Just like a magnet. And yet this is not as obvious
as other examples that have already been mention, like compressing a
spring or bouncing a ball. Was there some magic? No. You just have to
get "closer" to the stones, since they are neither magnetic nor elastic.
You could take some metal balls and throw against each other, if you have
some, and they will bounce even better than the stones.
>As a further example of whatever I'm trying to say here, say I
>use some energy to bring two opposite sided magnets to within
>an inch or so and let one of them go.
>They fly together...
They move to a lower combined enery state, converting potential energy into
kinetic energy.
>As a final question I would like to know how long a magnet
>could stay airborn if it was positioned above another magnet
>such that they are repelling one another.
Indefinitely. Just arrange them in some way that will prevent them from
loosing their balance and topple over. The top magnet is resting against
the magnetism of the bottom magnet. Or you could say the top magnet is
resting on the bottom magnet, mediated by the magnetic forces. It just
happens that the gap between them is big enough for you to notice.
--
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60 ! e-mail: s...@pkmab.se
Fax: +46 19-11 51 03 ! or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!ske
Kristoffer Eriksson
>>What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying that because
>>your metal pivot pivots, then the magnets will never reach a state of
>>equilibrium?
>
> I am saying that unless a magnet is powerful enough to bend steel, then the
>magnets will always be within 1/8 of an inch from each other.
Is that your idea of non-equilibrium? Is it a belief that equilibrium
would require the magnets to touch each other face to face that is your
mistake? Well, that isn't so. The magnets are already touching each other,
but they do so through a large magnetic force from the in stead of the
"usual" electrostatic forces between individual molecules in the material.
The magnetism of a magnet is composed by individual magnetic forces from
all over the magnet acting all aligned in the same direction. In non-
magnets the magnetism is pointing in all directions summing up to a net
magnetic force of 0, leaving mostly the electrostatic forces between
individual molecules, and especially between the electrons of the molecules,
to run the game and keep molecules apart, but this doesn't either point in
any particular direction and so will not keep objects as far apart as
the coordinated magnetism of a magnet will. But it is still basically
the same mechanism: things are kept apart by them excerting repulsion on
each other, and that goes not just for magnets.
> No I won't. No matter where the center magnet starts, it will be repelled.
>No matter what path it takes (of the one path to choose from), it will always
>be repelled. You have to see what it looks like to understand it.
I don't know how you arrange your magnets, but I would expect that even
though the center magnet is alwas being repelled (and being repelled is
nothing unusual, in fact it's happening all the time to everything, as
I tried to explain above), it would be repelled in several directions at
once stemming from different sources, either other magnets in the vincinity
or gravity, and these repelling forces will some up to zero somewhere, and
that is the place where the center magnet can find rest. It may be unstable
due to air currents or vibrations, but it will be there, and it will most
probably be somewhere in "mid-air".
If you have a very sensitive apparatus, you might be able do run it
indefinitely just on air currents, vibrations and temperature differences
in the environment, but that isn't exactly "free energy", even though you
may not have to pay money for that energy.
James W. Meritt
I've seen his claim for "had a working model".
Of course, every dimwit, charlatan, and humbug that made a dishonest dollar
has said the same thing.
Has anyone, I mean ANYONE, who required convincing seen this model???
Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily
represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts,
however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone.
j...@sun4.jhuapl.edu or j...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu or meritt%aplvm.BITNET
Rick Wilson
THERE *IS* A PATENT, dammit. PLANS ARE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THROUGH THE
U.S. PATENT OFFICE.
US Patent No. 4,151,431
Inventor Howard R. Johnson
Title Permanent Magnet Motor
Date Apr. 24, 1979
Why doesn't everyone with the following opinion:
>YOU ARE WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. No matter how you arrange
>the magnets, such a system will stop fairly soon.
get a copy of the patent, get a copy of the article in the spring 1980
issue of Science & Mechanics, BUILD it, and then you will be prepared
for the posting of the Tiberio machine plans. It sounds to me like the
two machines are different arrangements of the same concept.
Yes, the Patent Office played with several WORKING models before they
granted the patent.
Rick
--
Rick Wilson
ri...@tekfdi.TEK.COM
John Moore
]I repeat (while jumping up and down)
]THERE *IS* A PATENT, dammit. PLANS ARE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THROUGH THE
]U.S. PATENT OFFICE.
]
]US Patent No. 4,151,431
]Inventor Howard R. Johnson
]Title Permanent Magnet Motor
]Date Apr. 24, 1979
Just out of curiosity, since I'm unlikely to be at my local Patent Repository
for the next few months - could you tell us the Claims section of the Patent?
The Patent Office will happily grant a patent for a perm mag motor if
it the claims are worded right. Do the claims say anything amazing?
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!jo...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326 Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are all my fault, and no one elses.
Rick Wilson
>In article <50...@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM> ri...@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM (Rick Wilson) writes:
>]I repeat (while jumping up and down)
>]THERE *IS* A PATENT, dammit. PLANS ARE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THROUGH THE
>]U.S. PATENT OFFICE.
>]
>]US Patent No. 4,151,431
>]Inventor Howard R. Johnson
>]Title Permanent Magnet Motor
>]Date Apr. 24, 1979
>
>Just out of curiosity, since I'm unlikely to be at my local Patent Repository
>for the next few months - could you tell us the Claims section of the Patent?
>The Patent Office will happily grant a patent for a perm mag motor if
>it the claims are worded right. Do the claims say anything amazing?
There are 28 claims, and there is no way I am going to type them all in.
You understand, I hope.
Basically, if I understand this correctly, (I barely understood the claims
in my own patent application after a lawyer got through with it, so I
could be wrong) claim 1 is a basic discription of the "permanent magnet
motor" configuration with its plurality of track magnets being disposed
thereto.., etc,. "such as to impose a continuous force on said armature magnet
in said general direction of said track."
The rest of the claims describe variations which also work.
Of probable most interest is claim 26:
"The method of producing a motive force by permanent magnets wherin the
unpaired electron spinning particles existing within a permanent magnet
are utilized for producing a motive force comprising forming a stator
magneteic field track by means of at least one permanent magnet, producing
an armature magnetic field by means of a permament magnet and shaping and
locating said magnetic fields in such a manner as to produce relative
continuous unidirectional motion between said stator and armature field
producing magnets." (take a breath)
I infer from the Science & Mechanics article that he isn't claiming that
this is why it works. Actually at that time he really didn't know why it
works. This is his best guess, and if he's right then claim 26 gives
him ownership of that whole concept - I think. If he's wrong then he still
has the other 27 claims, except that 27 and 28 refer to 26.
Rick
--
Rick Wilson
ri...@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM
Cameron Randale Bass
Since I have access to neither the Science and Mechanics article,
nor the patent application, I'll make this brief. It appears that
he has either confused the patent examiner or confused someone in his
explanation. He also says unidirectional motion. To me that means
linear, so he is not describing a rotating machine at all. But even
if he is describing a rotating machine there are two points to be
considered:
1) Permanent magnets are not magical things, they obey things like
Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy. Without
energy input, his machine will stop due to air resistance and
other similar energy sinks. If he has shown a novel way of
decreasing such resistance, more power to him. But it seems
that he claims to be taking energy from internal degrees of freedom
inside the magnet. Neat trick. Unfortunately you cannot extract
useful work that way.
2) In light if 1), you cannot just blithely change the configuration
of the field without energetic consequences. In all cases, the
total kinetic energy available to the system will decrease without
external energy input. No if's and's or but's. There have been
no exceptions found, and most of modern physics would collapse
if there were.
Since we are all presumably logical people, let's think about this
for a minute. Some clown has had a patent on a machine that
you apparently claim to be, in essence, producing energy out
of nothingness. He has had the patent for over 10 years
Presumably it took him several years to come up with the idea.
So he has been sitting on the idea for around 15 years. Shoot, if
I had just discovered what you imply he did, I'd call the chairmen
of the boards of Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon and let the bidding begin.
In any case, he'd be a very wealthy man and would not need you as
a press agent.
Peter Hyde
RW> I repeat (while jumping up and down)
RW> THERE *IS* A PATENT, dammit. PLANS ARE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THROUGH
RW> THE U.S. PATENT OFFICE.
RW> US Patent No. 4,151,431
RW> Inventor Howard R. Johnson
RW> Title Permanent Magnet Motor
RW> Date Apr. 24, 1979
RW> Yes, the Patent Office played with several WORKING models before they
RW> granted the patent.
Since you are clearly in a position to do so, why don't you obtain
details from the patent office yourself and post them for the
rest of us who don't have that advantage? Based on the information given
above, we have NO way of knowing what that patent describes -- I can
imagine a large number of NON-perpetual motion NON-free energy
machines which could be described by the above "Title".
In the absence of details, your statement carries no weight no matter
how enthusiastically you pogo. :-)
cheers,
peter
--- Via Silver Xpress V2.27
* Origin: TONY'S BBS - Gateway to New Zealand. (3:770/101)
SEEN-BY: 770/101 771/110 150 170 772/20 50 60 140 774/501
FSC-Control: PATH: 770/101 772/20 771/170
Avatar
{bunch of stuff deleted to save bandwidth}
+ He has had the patent for over 10 years
+ Presumably it took him several years to come up with the idea.
+ So he has been sitting on the idea for around 15 years. Shoot, if
+ I had just discovered what you imply he did, I'd call the chairmen
+ of the boards of Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon and let the bidding begin.
+
+ In any case, he'd be a very wealthy man and would not need you as
+ a press agent.
+
How do you know that such a scenario has not been played out? There are
some very interesting theories on the murders and disappearances of
several individuals that made claims similar to Johnson's. The truth of
these ideas is questionable, but that the individuals were murdered or
disappeared is fact! Which brings up the real crux of the argument: The
very awesome weight that the existing power monopoly can wield..piss these
guys off and you're likely to be history! The best bet is for you to get
a copy of the patent, build one and then tell us what happens. I've seen
working models of the Johnson Motor. My guess is that after a time the
magnets would loose their field strength, but that's only a guess. In and
given that some technique or apparatus might be capable of coupling itself
to an unknown field or force, there is the possibility that useful work
might be done in a manner that would *appear* to violate the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics..keep that in mind! Never assume fraud, INVESTIGATE!
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 +-------------------------+
{csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!sorgatz **
(OPINIONS EXPRESSED DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CITICORP OR ITS MANAGEMENT!)
Rick Wilson
> Since I have access to neither the Science and Mechanics article,
> nor the patent application, I'll make this brief. It appears that
> he has either confused the patent examiner or confused someone in his
> explanation.
Now I'm confused. I'm not sure what you're having a problem with here.
> He also says unidirectional motion. To me that means
> linear, so he is not describing a rotating machine at all.
So we look at claim 14:
"...a stator comprising a plurality of circumferentially spaced stator
permanent magnets......and the spacing of said stator magnets being such
as to impose a continuing circumferential force on said armature magnet to
rotate said armature."
The secret is that you wrap the linear motor into a circle.
He demonstrated both linear and circular models to the Patent Office.
> But even
> if he is describing a rotating machine there are two points to be
> considered:
>
> 1) Permanent magnets are not magical things, they obey things like
> Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy. Without
> energy input, his machine will stop due to air resistance and
> other similar energy sinks.
Of course.
> If he has shown a novel way of
> decreasing such resistance, more power to him. But it seems
> that he claims to be taking energy from internal degrees of freedom
> inside the magnet. Neat trick. Unfortunately you cannot extract
> useful work that way.
You may have misunderstood and need more information about his idea
of electron spin. And don't look to me for it, please.
>
> 2) In light if 1), you cannot just blithely change the configuration
> of the field without energetic consequences. In all cases, the
> total kinetic energy available to the system will decrease without
> external energy input. No if's and's or but's. There have been
> no exceptions found, and most of modern physics would collapse
> if there were.
Absolutely. The Johnson motor is not an exception either.
>
> Since we are all presumably logical people, let's think about this
> for a minute. Some clown
^^^^^^^^^^
Completely uncalled for. "Following seven years of college and university
training, Johnson worked on atomic energy projects at Oak Ridge, did
magnetics research for Burroughs company, and served as scientific
consultant to Lukens Steel." This quote is followed by 4 column-inches
listing scientific accomplishments and their mass applications in the
auto and military industries, and ends with, "Johnson is connected
with more that 30 patents in the fields of chemistry and physics."
He's no Joe Neuman.
> has had a patent on a machine that
> you apparently claim to be, in essence, producing energy out
> of nothingness.
I made no such claim. Johnson made no such claim. The U.S. Patent
Office made no such claim. Of course there is a source of energy.
Of course the source will run out. Whether that source be the consumption
of the magnetic field, or a 100% conversion of the magnet's atoms to energy,
or micro-mice on tread mills, I don't know, and he didn't know at the time
either. So be careful with your generalizations.
I don't see why such a claim is needed for this machine to spin by itself.
> He has had the patent for over 10 years
> Presumably it took him several years to come up with the idea.
> So he has been sitting on the idea for around 15 years.
I don't know what has happened in the last 10 years. I would like to know.
But at that time he was hardly sitting on it. He was working with U.S
Magnets and Alloy Co. to develop better magnets. He was working with
Virginia Polytehnic Institute to do computer analysis of the system
to try to figure out why it works. He was developing a 5kW generator
and had licensing agreements with four companies.
> Shoot, if
> I had just discovered what you imply he did, I'd call the chairmen
> of the boards of Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon and let the bidding begin.
>
Maybe the motors are too heavy and expensive to be practical for the
amount of power they can produce. You don't know.
> In any case, he'd be a very wealthy man and would not need you as
> a press agent.
>
> dale bass
Maybe he is wealthy, and why do you bring me into this? I'm a messager
informing people who claim that such a thing hasn't been patented, when
indeed it has, with working models.
Cameron Randale Bass
>
Now, it is I who am really confused. I obviously was under the
impression that you were claiming some mystical energy source that
produced more net energy that was put into it through some sort
of magnetic interaction. Now magnetic fields do not create themselves
and (at least at the field strengths we are all familiar with) do
not cause electrons to annihilate themselves (imagine the static
charge after a while).
>
>> He also says unidirectional motion. To me that means
>> linear, so he is not describing a rotating machine at all.
>
>So we look at claim 14:
>"...a stator comprising a plurality of circumferentially spaced stator
>permanent magnets......and the spacing of said stator magnets being such
>as to impose a continuing circumferential force on said armature magnet to
>rotate said armature."
>
>The secret is that you wrap the linear motor into a circle.
>He demonstrated both linear and circular models to the Patent Office.
>
OK, looking at the latest claim, it apparently rotates.
Neat secret. Unfortunately as I have said before, without external
energy input, it will not run. At some point the potential will
be eaten up.
>> But even
>> if he is describing a rotating machine there are two points to be
>> considered:
>>
>> 1) Permanent magnets are not magical things, they obey things like
>> Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy. Without
>> energy input, his machine will stop due to air resistance and
>> other similar energy sinks.
>> If he has shown a novel way of
>> decreasing such resistance, more power to him. But it seems
>> that he claims to be taking energy from internal degrees of freedom
>> inside the magnet. Neat trick. Unfortunately you cannot extract
>> useful work that way.
>
>You may have misunderstood and need more information about his idea
>of electron spin. And don't look to me for it, please.
I do not think so. It sounds more like he does not understand.
>>
>> 2) In light if 1), you cannot just blithely change the configuration
>> of the field without energetic consequences. In all cases, the
>> total kinetic energy available to the system will decrease without
>> external energy input. No if's and's or but's. There have been
>> no exceptions found, and most of modern physics would collapse
>> if there were.
>
>Absolutely. The Johnson motor is not an exception either.
>
Then what I have said is true. There is no free energy.
>>
>> Since we are all presumably logical people, let's think about this
>> for a minute. Some clown
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Completely uncalled for. "Following seven years of college and university
>training, Johnson worked on atomic energy projects at Oak Ridge, did
^^^^^^^^^
Is this degrees? Or was he a lab tech?
And, gee whiz. I have 11 years of university training. I outrank him
by 4. This is pointless though. If he is claiming net energy
output from some mystical magnetic properties, he is a clown.
I was under the impression that you were claiming net energy
output from an isolated system using something like 'electron spin'.
I must be wrong.
>
>> has had a patent on a machine that
>> you apparently claim to be, in essence, producing energy out
>> of nothingness.
>
>I made no such claim. Johnson made no such claim. The U.S. Patent
>Office made no such claim. Of course there is a source of energy.
>Of course the source will run out. Whether that source be the consumption
>of the magnetic field, or a 100% conversion of the magnet's atoms to energy,
>or micro-mice on tread mills, I don't know, and he didn't know at the time
>either. So be careful with your generalizations.
>
This explains it all. Once again for the record, THERE IS NO ENERGY
IN A MAGNETIC FIELD UNLESS SOMEONE (OR SOMETHING) PUTS IT THERE. Magnets
have no energy in their fields unless, for instance, another magnet
is brought near. There are no micromice (I am using it as a metaphor).
>I don't see why such a claim is needed for this machine to spin by itself.
If you do not see, I'll repeat it again. Someone must roll this machine
up the potential mountain before it will run. You cannot just
do it with clever magnet placement. Once up, it will need to slide down
the potential mountain to move, thereby irreversibly losing energy
to the various irreversible processes.
>
>> In any case, he'd be a very wealthy man and would not need you as
>> a press agent.
>>
>> dale bass
>
>Maybe he is wealthy, and why do you bring me into this? I'm a messager
>informing people who claim that such a thing hasn't been patented, when
>indeed it has, with working models.
>
This is very misleading. It seems more like the message of
alchemy. I am not sure why you would want to bear
such tidings. He has no such thing as a motor that
outputs more energy than it receives (through the usual channels).
Since he does not, I am not sure why you brought this up.
By the way, I know several people who are very good with magnets,
but understand them not one bit (except intuitively). Intuitively,
it sounds very clever to arrange the magnets in a rotating
machine so that it thinks that it is always falling into the
potential well. Unfortunately (well actually fortunately), this
cannot be done. This man sounds like the case of another of them.
But of course, you could be misrepresening his position.
Rick Wilson
> RW> I repeat (while jumping up and down)
> RW> THERE *IS* A PATENT, dammit. PLANS ARE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THROUGH
> RW> THE U.S. PATENT OFFICE.
>
> RW> US Patent No. 4,151,431
> RW> Inventor Howard R. Johnson
> RW> Title Permanent Magnet Motor
> RW> Date Apr. 24, 1979
>
> RW> Yes, the Patent Office played with several WORKING models before they
> RW> granted the patent.
>
>Since you are clearly in a position to do so, why don't you obtain
>details from the patent office yourself and post them for the
>rest of us who don't have that advantage?
The "position" I'm in is that I went to my company's legal department
and ordered a copy. (Actually someone else here did it and I made a copy.)
Anyone else in the world can do the same.
> Based on the information given
>above, we have NO way of knowing what that patent describes -- I can
>imagine a large number of NON-perpetual motion NON-free energy
>machines which could be described by the above "Title".
That's why I posted the information needed for you to get one and read it.
I am not going to type in 9 pages of small-print legaleeze and pictures.
I will say this much about the patent. It discribes an arrangement of
magnets that spins without batteries, wires, solor cells, etc. It claims
to use unpaired electron spins as the power source. Everyone is welcome
to argue the spin theory, but that won't make the machine stop turning.
By the way, it is not a perpetual motion machine. It is simply a machine
that I think is similar to Dave Tiberio's machine (which people are
claiming can't possibly work or be patented).
I will also repeat the reference to the Science & Mechanics article:
Science & Mechanics
Spring 1980 issue
Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor
by Jorma Hyypia
Rick Wilson
> Unfortunately as I have said before, without external
> energy input, it will not run. At some point the potential will
> be eaten up.
> .
> .
> Then what I have said is true. There is no free energy.
We are in total agreement.
>> "Following seven years of college and university
>>training, Johnson worked on atomic energy projects at Oak Ridge, did
>^^^^^^^^^
>
> Is this degrees? Or was he a lab tech?
The article doesn't say.
> If he is claiming net energy
> output from some mystical magnetic properties, he is a clown.
I don't know how "mystical" the properties are, but nevertheless, the
motor turns.
> I was under the impression that you were claiming net energy
> output from an isolated system using something like 'electron spin'.
> I must be wrong.
The only thing wrong is that you included me. They are Johnson's claims.
> Once again for the record, THERE IS NO ENERGY
> IN A MAGNETIC FIELD UNLESS SOMEONE (OR SOMETHING) PUTS IT THERE. Magnets
> have no energy in their fields unless, for instance, another magnet
> is brought near. There are no micromice (I am using it as a metaphor).
> I'll repeat it again. Someone must roll this machine
> up the potential mountain before it will run. You cannot just
> do it with clever magnet placement. Once up, it will need to slide down
> the potential mountain to move, thereby irreversibly losing energy
> to the various irreversible processes.
Didn't I put potential energy into the magnets when I magnetized them?
There was noise, heat, and magnets where no magnet had been before.
Am I wrong in thinking that magnets are higher potental than the same
material not magnetized?
>> I'm a messager
>>informing people who claim that such a thing hasn't been patented, when
>>indeed it has, with working models.
>>
>
> This is very misleading. It seems more like the message of
> alchemy. I am not sure why you would want to bear
> such tidings. He has no such thing as a motor that
> outputs more energy than it receives (through the usual channels).
> Since he does not, I am not sure why you brought this up.
I brought it up because everyone was saying that Dave Tiberio's machine
couldn't possibly work, and that there has never been a patent issued
on a device using the same concept. Rather than let everyone wallow in
ignorance I decided to point out that such a patent does exist on a device
that appears to use the same concept.
>
> By the way, I know several people who are very good with magnets,
> but understand them not one bit (except intuitively). Intuitively,
> it sounds very clever to arrange the magnets in a rotating
> machine so that it thinks that it is always falling into the
> potential well. Unfortunately (well actually fortunately), this
> cannot be done. This man sounds like the case of another of them.
> But of course, you could be misrepresening his position.
I have been trying not to represent his position, but to point to documents
that do. What misrepresents the position most is the "free energy"
subject line. I didn't write that, but when I changed it to something
realistic most people didn't notice my article and continued to say that no
patents have been issued on the concept.
Maybe this hypothetical dialog will point out the source of some of the
confusion:
inventor: "I invented a machine that runs by itself."
skeptic: "You say you built a perpetual motion machine?"
inventor: "No, I..."
skeptic: "Oh, so you haven't built it. It's only on paper? Well let me
tell you that it won't work."
inventor: "I *have* built it, but it's not perpetual motion."
skeptic: "A perpetual motion machine that's not perpetual. Surprize,
Surprize. You're a fraud."
inventor throws up hands and goes to watch his machine spin.
Rick Wilson
> It is not necessary to investigate everything. Some things are
> ruled out by previous evidence.
Example: The theoretical impossibility of Tiberio's machine working
might be ruled out by the evidence of a similar machine
that does work.
Dale, you live closer to VPI in Blacksburg, Virginia than most of us.
How can we motivate you to see if Professor William Harrison is still
there? He did some research on the Johnson machine to figure out why
it works. I'm sure he could shed a lot of light on it.
Rick Wilson
>Unfortunately, Howard R. Johnson no longer lives at the address given in
>the patent, so I was unable to reach him for comment regarding a circular
>arrangement of his LINEAR motor.
I'm sorry to hear you couldn't find him. I'm glad you tried. I'm curious
about the last 10 years.
I thought the patent pretty well describes the circular versions.
> The only way that the patent you've been
>screaming about can run perpetually is if it is infinitely long. Big deal
I'm looking at a photo of one that looks to be about 6 feet in circumference.
The part that spins weighs 40 pounds.
>Without further ado, I yield to Mr. Johnson:
One of 28 claims was posted here. I was going to congratulate you for
typing them all in but now you've only done as many as I have. :-(
>Okay, Rick, I have seen the patent. Now can you please explain to me just
>why this invention has any relevance whatsoever to Dave Tiberio's claim
>that magnetic machines may be built that will:
>
> A) Run Perpetually
I don't support the "perpetual" part any more than you, Mr. Johnson or the
U.S. Patent Office does.
>and
> B) Allow Energy to Be Extracted Over Time?
Once a lawn mower is up and running the "work" part is elementary.
The same goes here. Most people just don't believe that it can ever
be up and running. That's not my problem. It's nature's problem for
forgetting to tell the machine to quite spinning while it was in the
Patent Office. I don't understand why it spins, but then I didn't understand
why gas made a lawn mower spin until I took chemistry. But the lawn mower
spun anyway.
Kevin D. Quitt
>In article <1990Dec19.2...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> cr...@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>{bunch of stuff deleted to save bandwidth}
>+ He has had the patent for over 10 years
>+ Presumably it took him several years to come up with the idea.
>+ So he has been sitting on the idea for around 15 years. Shoot, if
>+ I had just discovered what you imply he did, I'd call the chairmen
>+ of the boards of Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon and let the bidding begin.
>+
>+ In any case, he'd be a very wealthy man and would not need you as
>+ a press agent.
>+
>
> How do you know that such a scenario has not been played out? There are
>some very interesting theories on the murders and disappearances of
>several individuals that made claims similar to Johnson's. The truth of
>these ideas is questionable, but that the individuals were murdered or
>disappeared is fact!
This being the case, it should be trivial for you to provide some
documentation for this statement. How about (alleged) invention, name
of inventor, date and cause of death, and the source of information? How
about just the source of information?
--
_
Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq k...@demott.com
DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266
VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last
Pat Berry
> How do you know that such a scenario has not been played out? There are
> some very interesting theories on the murders and disappearances of
> several individuals that made claims similar to Johnson's. The truth of
> these ideas is questionable, but that the individuals were murdered or
> disappeared is fact! Which brings up the real crux of the argument: The
> very awesome weight that the existing power monopoly can wield..piss these
> guys off and you're likely to be history!
Interesting. We should be able to determine when this power monopoly
came into existence by examining the rate of technological progress in
recent times. Presumably, progress would come to a halt, or slow to a
crawl, soon after the appearance of the power monopoly. Unfortunately,
nothing of the sort has happened. Either this power monopoly doesn't
exist, or it's hopelessly ineffective.
Pat Berry p...@ramona.Cary.NC.US
Cameron Randale Bass
>some very interesting theories on the murders and disappearances of
>several individuals that made claims similar to Johnson's. The truth of
>these ideas is questionable, but that the individuals were murdered or
>disappeared is fact! Which brings up the real crux of the argument: The
Murder is one of the favorite pastimes of this country. Throw in
a bit of mental instability, the credulity of certain people, and you
have a conspiracy. Obviously you have no experience with major
corporations. It is next to impossible for them to pull their
fingers out of their @$$es, much less plan worldwide conspiracies.
>very awesome weight that the existing power monopoly can wield..piss these
>guys off and you're likely to be history! The best bet is for you to get
>a copy of the patent, build one and then tell us what happens. I've seen
>working models of the Johnson Motor. My guess is that after a time the
>magnets would loose their field strength, but that's only a guess. In and
No, I do not have to get the patent at all. Why investigate things with
with vanishingly small probabilities of success? One could spend his or
her life doing that with no return. Also, you seem to be confusing
the magnet's ability to maintain a magnetic field with the field itself.
There is no energy in the field of a permanent magnet structure, unless
someone put it there when assembling the motor. It runs down from
there. Someone pointed out that magnetic bearings could appear
to run for a long time which is true, but never will the total energy
exceed the initial energy. Never. After a time, the fields (note again:
fields, not the ability of the magnets to sustain them) will lose their
strength and the motor will stop. The only way to start it again would
be to give it a push or reassemble the motor (thereby putting energy in
again).
>given that some technique or apparatus might be capable of coupling itself
>to an unknown field or force, there is the possibility that useful work
>might be done in a manner that would *appear* to violate the 2nd Law of
>Thermodynamics..keep that in mind! Never assume fraud, INVESTIGATE!
>
Agreed, there is a very small probability that there are unknown forces
or 'fields' that could run such a device. But it strains the credibility
to assert that this is only true when the magnets are arranged in
a certain way, while they operate according to Maxwell's laws at
all other times. I did not assume fraud, just incompetence on someone's
part.
It is not necessary to investigate everything. Some things are
ruled out by previous evidence. Why don't you go and investigate
Fort's reports of 'raining frogs'? After all, there is a possibility
that a colony of frogs got caught in an updraft (at least I have a
mechanism here, which is lacking in all of these 'free energy'
discussions).
John Berryhill
Unfortunately, Howard R. Johnson no longer lives at the address given in
the patent, so I was unable to reach him for comment regarding a circular
arrangement of his LINEAR motor. The only way that the patent you've been
screaming about can run perpetually is if it is infinitely long. Big deal.
The magazine article that you mentioned is unavailable in our library.
Perhaps you can give me an address to which I can send a SASE and a nominal
charge so that I may see it.
I can have an object execute rotational motion indefinitely simply by
placing it in gravitational orbit around another object (assuming that we
can neglect tidal drag & cetera). I can construct a similar arrangement
that uses magnetism as the source of centripetal force.
However, and this is the important part, WORK IS NOT, as someone said
earlier, FORCE TIMES DISTANCE. It is, rather, the scalar product of the
vectors of force and displacement. Why is that important? Because in a
rotational system, the centripetal force is normal to the displacement.
Anything can spin forever without yielding a single erg. Big deal.
Without further ado, I yield to Mr. Johnson:
4,151,431
PERMANENT MAGNET MOTOR
Howard R. Johnson, 3300 Mt. Hope Rd., Grass Lake, Mich. 49240
________
__/ \__
<------------ / ________ \
/ __/ \__ \
/ / \ \
/N/ \S\
|/ \|
+---N---+ +---N---+ +---N---+ +---N---+ +---N---+
... | | | | | | | | | | ...
_______+---S---+____+---S---+____+---S---+____+---S---+____+---S---+______
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A permanent magnet motor comprising, in combination, a stator track
defining a track direction and havirg first and second sides and composed
of a plurality of track permanent magnets each having first and second
poles of opposite polarity, said magnets being disposed in side-by-side
relationship having a spacing between adjacent magnets and like poles
defining said track sides, an elongated armature permanent magnet located
on one of said track sides for relative movement thereto and in spaced
relationship to said track side wherein an air gap exists between said
armature magnet and said track magnets, said armature magnet having first
and second poles of opposite polarity located at the opposite ends of said
armature magnet defining the length thereof, the length of said armature
magnet being disposed in a dirction in general alignment with the direction
of said track associated side and the length of said armature magnet as
related to the width and spacing of said track magnets in the direction of
said track being such as to impose a continuous force on said armature
magnet in said general direction of said track."
Okay, Rick, I have seen the patent. Now can you please explain to me just
why this invention has any relevance whatsoever to Dave Tiberio's claim
that magnetic machines may be built that will:
A) Run Perpetually
and
B) Allow Energy to Be Extracted Over Time?
Furthermore, can anyone at all explain to me just what on earth any of this
has to do with Dave Tiberio's claim that a number of different such
machines may be constructed which operate on other principles but that
their invention is actively being suppressed by what can only be considered
a massive international secret capitalist conspiracy?
Can Dave Tiberio himself explain why if such a capitalist conspiracy exists
that such machines were never developed by clever communists?
--
John Berryhill
143 King William
Newark, DE 19711
99700000
or series of articles circa 1959 published, I think, in Electrical Engineering
(the magazine of the AIEE, before it merged with the IRE to become IEEE)
The title was "The Gravy Train" and the concept was a tube containing
a spiral arrangement of magnets, to produce a torque on a rotating
magnet on the train car. The rotating magnet was geared to the
wheels, so that the torque would move the car down the tube. The point
of the article was for E.E. professors to explain why the thing would
not work.
Perhaps somebody with a better library than we have here would like to
look up the articles and tell us about them. I don't think our library
goes back that far.
hay...@ucscc.ucsc.edu
hay...@ucscc.bitnet
"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
John Berryhill
Rick, I think you are confused about Tiberio's initial claims.
Read carefully. No one here doubts that a Howard R. Johnson has
patented a neat doohickey that spins for a long time.
Everyone, on the other hand, doubts that Dave Tiberio is aware of or has
constructed machines which he has claimed can satisfy our energy needs and
have been covered up by greedy capitalists. These are the claims that he
has made. I'll send you the articles if you want them.
This whole deal came out of one question about Joseph Newman's energy
machine. That is when Dave entered with his "conspiracy theory" of
thermodynamics.
From the tenor of your articles in this thread, particularly the short
script that you wrote, I sincerely doubt that you caught the genesis of
this whole pointless and tedious discussion.
Avatar
+ This being the case, it should be trivial for you to provide some
+documentation for this statement. How about (alleged) invention, name
+of inventor, date and cause of death, and the source of information? How
+about just the source of information?
Hi Kevin! I've noticed your postings on the net, you might not remember
me, I think we went to the same High School...anyway, one of the
individuals you might want to research is Dr. Henry Moray. Moray gave
many public demonstrations of a device that he called the 'Moray Valve'.
Documentation for these demos can be found in most library microfilm
records for the years 1936-1941 and 1945-1952, Utah Hearld and other area
newspapers especially since that's where Moray was living and working.
Most of the demonstrations were well attended by the press and public
alike. Moray put a unit in his car trunk lighting up 2500 watts of
incandescent bulbs setup in a framework attached to the rear of his car!
He and his wife drove across America with this rig in 1938, giving demos
at county fairs and suchlike.
A typical demonstration was to plug in several thousand watts of light
bulbs and heaters into a unit built into a briefcase! The unit could be
lifted by anyone who cared to heft it. The units weighed 60 lbs or so and
could easily generate 5-10KW continously. On several ocassions, the units
demonstrated 50 KW for periods of several hours. One demonstration was
disrupted by an attempt on the man's life, a shot that missed Moray killed
a newsman, this was in 1939. Moray was later that year shot in his own
lab and lived to tell about it. He claimed that the power companies were
out to get him. His own hired bodyguard took a shot at him and then
committed suicide. Moray died in the mid 1950's from an apparent heart
attack, his family claims that he was poisoned. The MD's attribute the
death to "heart failure"...I'll get you/the Net, the address where you can
write and buy a copy of his book. It's titled: "The Sea of Energy".
Dr. Moray is survived by his son John Moray. I've talked to John, it
seems that there is no working example of the Moray Valve, but John says
that it could be built if there was enough money/interest in doing so..??
There have been others too. I'll post some sources on this stuff, and you
can judge for yourself. I'm iffy about it, there seems to be an awful lot
of these stories..it might be real. If those demonstrations were fakes,
then they were damn clever fakes! Fooled a lot of very well trained EE's
and others that should have known better.
ps-anyone out there in Salt Lake ever visited the Moray Institute? Know
anything about these guys? (I'd love to have the time to go visit...!)
Kevin D. Quitt
>can judge for yourself.
I look forward to it.
> I'm iffy about it, there seems to be an awful lot
>of these stories..it might be real. If those demonstrations were fakes,
>then they were damn clever fakes! Fooled a lot of very well trained EE's
>and others that should have known better.
That's the best kind of fake, isn't it? Lockheed was very nearly
fooled into buying an anti-gravity machine (this wasn't technically a
fake, the guy really thought it worked - and it looked like it did). And
Ford nearly bought a 200 MPG carburetor, until gas started leaking from
the hollow frame of the car.