Free Solid State/mechanical energy

[Maximumgravity1]

In the case of perpetual motion holder, here is my interpretation (more or less romantic). Once started in motion in the iron core, the "North magnets" and "South magnets" are searching for their pair in whirling motion. In all this whirling motion, they cannot reach eachother, but as long they have a way (path) to continue the search, they will do it. And will use all means to maintain that path. It's like being cursed perpetualy to search for their pair.

That's it. Other views?

I wonder if they are actually searching each other out?  The only difference between this ring and a bar magnet of eaqual length is the poles connect back together.  So in the case of the bar magnet, if you hook four bar magnets end to end, you are in essnece creating a single magnet of equal length and strength (possible room for argument for the strength) to a single bar magnet.  The only difference is instead of the magnets generating from a single void, they are passing through four voids.  Does this alter them in some way?  Recharge them?  Give them more strength?  I don't know, but it does instantly and simultaneously change their polarity - while continuing in the same direction - away from the "perceived" center point, and out the respective "new" poles.  So the north end at the end of a chain of 4 bar magnets is still the same north end as that of just one.

Now if we bend that bar in a circle, we have the disc magnet of erfinders, and a similar contraption to Leedskanlin's PMH (Perpetual Motion Holder).  The only difference, instead of four magnets with 8 voids, there is now only two magnets - or three voids (the one central of the bent bar, and one formed at each of the ends of the "keeper").  I don't know if this is important or not.

I think the similarities are close enough to be overlooked between what you and I are saying.  The difference I believe comes in that if you have a set of magnets induced into the bar, and continual chase each other looking for their mates, it implies a finite amount of magnets.  I am not sure this is the case.  With the multiple voids, it leads me to believe there can be "MORE" magnets than were originally induced.  It also leads me to believe this is what Leedskanlin was getting at when he said:
"From the above experiment you can see the perpetual motion holder can act as a living thing. It knows which way to swing each magnet. This shows if more magnets are added to a living thing then it can perform things it could not do before."

Do more "voids" equal the ability to hold more magnets?  I don't know.  Probably not, the material will hold the same amount of magnets it is capable of before it spills out of the material.  However, in the case of performing a functioning circuit, it does provide more opportunity for reversal of pole charge - while moving in the same direction.  I perceive this as more opportunity to induce charge into something.  Much like adding coils to cut flux lines.

[bocas]

Maximum,
     My thoughts on the magnet are that when the ends are connected the potential is lost and the lines of force between the poles are gone or much weaker.  Also, I think that the void is different where north and south unite each magnet as compared to the void separating the poles.  One separates and the other unites. 

Any thoughts?

[Maximumgravity1]

My thoughts on the magnet are that when the ends are connected the potential is lost and the lines of force between the poles are gone or much weaker.

Bocas,
  I don't know, I am exploring this along with everyone else, but let me take a stab at this....
   Lets reverse the perspective and analyze it from the perspective of what could NOT happen if there were no potential, and the lines of force were weaker.
  If the lines of force were weaker, we should be able to test for this.  We could assume that the voltage flowing around (as seen in the PMH from the Matthew Emery link before) the PMH would drop - as can be seen by the amp meter that Emery connected, it did show a drop to about 6 amps while in perpetual state.  Since Amperage is the "flow (movement) of electric charge", we could assume that this could be true.  However, when the bar keeper is removed, the light bulb lights just as intensely as it did immediately after charging the coils.  This can happen even after 6 months.  To me, this seems to show a lot of potential - that does not diminish over time (assuming no disturbance).  Wikipedia says "Electric potential may be conceived of as "electric pressure". Where this "pressure" is uniform, no current flows and nothing happens. "  We know current is flowing because the amp meter says so.

I am not sure how we would test for the force between the poles being gone or weaker, other then a physical force test.  In the case of the PMH, the "keeper" is able to sustain between 25 to 30 lbs of force (which is work) depending on size and scale, If the poles were weekend, I would think the top bar would fly off with little to no pressure - possibly even repel the bar since the pull of gravity is exerting its own force on the bar, and without a charge, the bar will at least lay across the top of the "U".  Since this force is able to sustain itself over the same 6 months that the charge is flowing, I would have to assume that this is not the case either.  Again from the Emery experiment page:

Despite the idiotic statement oft quoted by some anal retentive physicists and scientists that 'magnets cannot DO work'....a magnet stuck on a refrigerator door that stays there for 10 years has DONE work by resisting gravity. Case closed, magnets CAN do work.

Some will groan but I do notice a correlation with two things Keely wrote, using a hammer to EXCITE some of his devices into operation AND that magnets can have weights added to them and over time their flux density will increase (similar to Leedskalnins' claim of magnets being 'living' and thus amenable to growth).

This further indicates that the forces between the pole do not grow weaker - but can grow stronger.

Also, I think that the void is different where north and south unite each magnet as compared to the void separating the poles.  One separates and the other unites.

I am inclined to agree with this - as I do not understand what the "void" is in either case.  I have seen the "void" between the "individual magnets" described as a "neutral".  There would be no movement of north against south if that "neutral" were not there - as the two would occupy the same space.  And although I am inclide to agree that the individual magnet's "neutral" seems to "unite" as opposed to "repel", I think ERFINDER lets us in on a bit of a clue:
"Positive charge attracts positive charge and expels negative discharge.  Negative discharge repels both negative discharge and positive charge."

                                                                       The Universal One
If we break this down to thelevel of the individual "magnets" and not just assume the poles on the bar magnet, I think this is saying "Positive seeks positive, and expels ("gives off" as opposed to repel???) negative charge."  "Negative charge does not seek negative or positive".  I am still trying to wrap my head around this, and I may be misinterpreting it.

Here is Jon DePew's thought on the neutral:
http://www.coralcastlecode.com/id17.html

From the coralcastlecode.com site, this image of the Fleur De Lis is a pretty interesting visual interpretation.




EDIT - I could have saved myself some work, in reviewing ERFINDERS comments, I found this:
Reason why the number of magnets is important...

Each segment centers a field which extends from the Bloch wall.  The Bloch wall the point of stillness, the point where the Creator centers the created, the point between the two poles.  Here it can be said that the potentials at the poles represent the total power of the neutral point, that the poles represent the neutral point divided, the neutral point, where one becomes two, and two become three.  The neutral and the two extended poles.

Each segment thus has it's own potential (both the potential and frequency of what we falsely call magnetism is extremely high).  If people knew how to construct circuits which functioned on the principles of induction versus conduction, from this one change an entirely new way of doing things would be born.  Connecting the magnets in series is like connecting batteries in series.  More batteries results in more current in the circuit, the same holds true for the magnet segments, as the two are mirrors of one another, just instead of conducting currents you are inducing fields.  Through the ring we connect to the wheel work of nature!!!...
...There is a current flowing within the magnet ring, a magnetic current...
But I think it was a worthwhile endeavour talking it through....

EDIT 2... reorganized erfinder's quote to the original order in which he stated it

[mkt3920]

I have sent an email to Scotty of www.leedskalnin.com to ask for his input into this thread.  Hopefully he can help me/us to understand some of Ed's work as he is one who actually did Ed's suggested experiments.  And then, in turn, understand more of ERfinder's comments.

I am also rereading "The Secret of Light" by Walter Russell as it was many years ago when I first read it.  I feel this is one of Walter Russell's best writings and I will try to share some of its contents soon.

Just wanted to let others know I too was following/learning from this thread.
Kent

[nat1971a]

Hi All,

RE: ERFINDERS QUOTE "It must be understood that a magnet has four poles, not two!  Two poles charge the magnet, and two poles discharge it!  There are therefore four vortex! Two of them contract towards the center expressing the gravitive, or concentrative power of Mind Thinking, and the other two expand from the center expressing the radiative, or decentrative power of Mind Thinking.  This is demonstrated in the diagram. "

The following diagram of Walter Russell's shows us the 4 poles that ERFINDER is talking about.

http://www.vortexpluswater.com/vortex_basics.htm

Regards,

Nat