Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of this Forum, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above
Thanks to ALL for your help!!


MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

Started by guest1289, August 10, 2015, 11:41:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 ... 8
User actions

MarkE

#5
August 10, 2015, 04:33:38 PM
If you have not even done hand calculations, then odds are that this is not going to work because it is going to run smack into Earnshaw's Theorem.  As you probably know, the attracting or repelling force between two magnets or in a reluctance gap tends to be very non-linear.  What Earnshaw's Theorem asserts is that you cannot come up with a stable static magnet configuration.  The system will have positive feedback which will either drive the magnets off of each other, or snap together.  You can think of it as trying to balance a marble on the top of a cone.

If you have come up with a way to get around Earnshaw's Theorem or to prove it wrong, then you probably have something valuable.  If you just have a raw idea and haven't done any calculations to check the idea's viability, then chances are the idea doesn't work.

MagnaProp

#6
August 10, 2015, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: guest1289 on August 10, 2015, 11:41:23 AM
MY INVENTION
Hi. I'm trying to visualize your idea. Are these images correct?

guest1289

#7
August 10, 2015, 08:54:16 PM
MagnaProp  ,   no,   that's not actually the same as my invention

IN MY FIRST POST FOR THIS THREAD,  I ATTACHED A DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS  A   'CROSS-SECTION-DIAGRAM'   OF MY   MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK,   BUT,   YOU WILL HAVE TO ACTUALLY CLICK ON THE LINK TO THE DOCUMENT,  TO OPEN IT.

(  But all sorts of different versions and configurations of my invention could exist,   I don't know if yours would work or not )

THE   'MAGNETIC-CRADLING-EFFECT'  OF MY INVENTION IS MORE BASED ON THE WELL KNOWN PRINCIPLE,  IN THE IMAGE BELOW (  PASTE THE  ADDRESS  BELOW INTO YOUR BROWSER SITE ADDRESS FIELD  ),  OR CLICK ON THE LINK

(  NOTE : IF I CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW,  MY BROWSER JUST  DOWNLOADS  THE IMAGE,  AND THEN I HAVE TO CLICK ON THE  DOWNLOAD TO VIEW IT   )

http://overunity.com/6048/using-magnets-instead-of-bearings/dlattach/attach/27840/image//

Hopefully,  the picture will still be there when you go to it 
__________

At the moment,  one of the  other members has been having me a little bit worried about    'Earnshaw's Theorem',   which I'm about the post a reply to ,  BUT,   I HAVE JUST REALIZED,   THAT THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE HE DOES  NOT  FULLY REALIZE THAT MY INVENTION IS BASED ON THE WELL KNOWN PRINCIPLE IN THE ABOVE PICTURE.
 

guest1289

#8
August 10, 2015, 08:56:45 PM
.
POST MODIFICATION / UPDATE  :  -  MY INVENTION DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM POSED BY 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' IN TERMS OF  'SIDEWAYS-SLIPPAGE'  OF MY  'LEVITATING-OBJECT' ABOVE THE  MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK.   
        BUT THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' COULD PROVE OR DISPROVE IT'S ABILITY TO  LEVITATE ( ACHIEVE A  MEISSNER-LIKE-EFFECT ) ABOVE THE  MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK,  I.E.   TO WORK AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY .

THE FOLLOWING  'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST',   COULD BE DONE WITH  THOSE  PLASTIC-FOOD-CONTAINERS    'THAT FIT INTO EACH OTHER'  ( such as  plastic food containers for the freezer  )  .
(   THIS  PARTICULAR   'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST'   WOULD BE USEFULL TO   'MAYBE'  'DISPROVE'    'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM',    AND IT ALSO CONTAINS  A  'CRADLING'  EFFECT,   WHICH MY  INVENTION CONTAINS,  BUT MY INVENTION DOES IT WITH MAGNETS     )

(  Unfortunately though,  these containers are slightly flexible,  so ............  )
_________________

SCENARIO 1

On the   'outer-corners'   of the  'Two'  'Plastic-Storage-Containers',    glue a total of 8 magnets  to  attract  the  two  'Plastic-Storage-Containers'  to each other(  when one container is being lowered  into  the other container ).

(   In this scenario,    the magnets used for  'attraction',  are the same strength as the magnets used for  'repulsion'   )

In the  middle-section of  the  two   'Plastic-Storage-Containers',   glue a total of 8 magnets( of the same strength as above )  to   REPEL   the  two   'Plastic-Storage-Containers'   away from each other(  when one container is being lowered  into  the other container ).

In this scenario,  I'm not actually sure what would happen .

________________________

SCENARIO 2

On the   'outer-corners'   of the  'Two'  'Plastic-Storage-Containers',    glue a total of 8 magnets  to  attract  the  two  'Plastic-Storage-Containers'  to each other(  when one container is being lowered  into  the other container ).

(   In this scenario,    the magnets used for  'attraction',  are  'WEAKER THAN'  the magnets used for  'repulsion'   )

In the  middle-section of  the  two   'Plastic-Storage-Containers',   glue a total of 8 magnets( each magnet being of a  'STRONGER'  strength than the magnets used for   attraction  above )  to   REPEL   the  two   'Plastic-Storage-Containers'   away from each other(  when one container is being lowered  into  the other container ).

In this scenario,  again,  I'm not totally sure what would happen .

________________________

SCENARIO 3  -   THE SPECIAL SCENARIO

THE FOLLOWING  SCENARIO,    IS DESIGNED TO BREAK THE SYMMETRY OF THE  'DISTANCE'  BETWEEN   'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER'  ,     AND,     'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER'  .

For this scenario,   repeat   'SCENARIO 1',    but now either  'INCREASE',   OR   'DECREASE' ,    the distance between         either  'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER',   OR,    between   'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER'  ,    BREAKING THE  'SYMMETRY'  OF THESE  TWO  DISTANCES.

In this scenario,  I really cannot work out what would happen.

________________________

Unfortunately,  I cannot even construct the incredibly simple test above.


MarkE

#9
August 10, 2015, 11:40:08 PM
Quote from: guest1289 on August 10, 2015, 08:56:45 PM
.
POST MODIFICATION / UPDATE  :  -  MY INVENTION DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM POSED BY 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' IN TERMS OF  'SIDEWAYS-SLIPPAGE'  OF MY  'LEVITATING-OBJECT' ABOVE THE  MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK.   

On what basis do you believe that your arrangement gets around Earnshaw's Theorem?
Quote

        BUT THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' COULD PROVE OR DISPROVE IT'S ABILITY TO  LEVITATE ( ACHIEVE A  MEISSNER-LIKE-EFFECT ) ABOVE THE  MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK,  I.E.   TO WORK AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY .

What is the "Meissner-like" behavior that you claim your arrangement of conventional permanent magnets exhibits?
Quote

THE FOLLOWING  'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST',   COULD BE DONE WITH  THOSE  PLASTIC-FOOD-CONTAINERS    'THAT FIT INTO EACH OTHER'  ( such as  plastic food containers for the freezer  )  .
(   THIS  PARTICULAR   'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST'   WOULD BE USEFULL TO   'MAYBE'  'DISPROVE'    'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM',    AND IT ALSO CONTAINS  A  'CRADLING'  EFFECT,   WHICH MY  INVENTION CONTAINS,  BUT MY INVENTION DOES IT WITH MAGNETS     )

(  Unfortunately though,  these containers are slightly flexible,  so ............  )
_________________

SCENARIO 1

On the   'outer-corners'   of the  'Two'  'Plastic-Storage-Containers',    glue a total of 8 magnets  to  attract  the  two  'Plastic-Storage-Containers'  to each other(  when one container is being lowered  into  the other container ).

(   In this scenario,    the magnets used for  'attraction',  are the same strength as the magnets used for  'repulsion'   )

In the  middle-section of  the  two   'Plastic-Storage-Containers',   glue a total of 8 magnets( of the same strength as above )  to   REPEL   the  two   'Plastic-Storage-Containers'   away from each other(  when one container is being lowered  into  the other container ).

In this scenario,  I'm not actually sure what would happen .

________________________

SCENARIO 2

On the   'outer-corners'   of the  'Two'  'Plastic-Storage-Containers',    glue a total of 8 magnets  to  attract  the  two  'Plastic-Storage-Containers'  to each other(  when one container is being lowered  into  the other container ).

(   In this scenario,    the magnets used for  'attraction',  are  'WEAKER THAN'  the magnets used for  'repulsion'   )

In the  middle-section of  the  two   'Plastic-Storage-Containers',   glue a total of 8 magnets( each magnet being of a  'STRONGER'  strength than the magnets used for   attraction  above )  to   REPEL   the  two   'Plastic-Storage-Containers'   away from each other(  when one container is being lowered  into  the other container ).

In this scenario,  again,  I'm not totally sure what would happen .

________________________

SCENARIO 3  -   THE SPECIAL SCENARIO

THE FOLLOWING  SCENARIO,    IS DESIGNED TO BREAK THE SYMMETRY OF THE  'DISTANCE'  BETWEEN   'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER'  ,     AND,     'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER'  .

For this scenario,   repeat   'SCENARIO 1',    but now either  'INCREASE',   OR   'DECREASE' ,    the distance between         either  'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER',   OR,    between   'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER'  ,    BREAKING THE  'SYMMETRY'  OF THESE  TWO  DISTANCES.

In this scenario,  I really cannot work out what would happen.

________________________

Unfortunately,  I cannot even construct the incredibly simple test above.
Why don't you explain why you believe any of these tests should work the way you hope.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 ... 8
User actions