Magnet motor , tried to replicate a 2nd working proto. Unsuccessful so far :(

[SoManyWires]

A good scientific approach has never lead to over unity, because good science has proven beyond doubt that over unity does not exist.
It is OK to have theoretical concepts, but the theory can't have misleading flaws. Flaws has mislead countless (and each and everyone of them) hobbyists into great frustration every time their practical findings does not support their theory of over unity.

There is no theory in over unity that is supported by physics. So just give up, and find other ways to free energy that does not violate physics - it's plenty of it - so much that the humanity as a whole cannot tame it all, just charge you money for using it... Find your way around, and not tell the government what you power your house with ;-)

Vidar

there is truth written in what you just wrote.

as luck would have it, or by not trying to be lucky about it, thoughout history is that science is able to accept when it is sometimes wrong,
in order to correct itself accordingly.

so if anyone gets the notion to attempt to redefine a theory and possibly becomes correct , they surely wont be burned at the stake by any emotionally stable scientists.

careful constructive criticism is like food for the brave well meaning experimenter, even though everyone sometimes offers negative charged critical insight, the critics too feel they themselves are correct, and in most cases they are.

should you give up? not unless you want to. you could say: at least i tried,  the critics were right to begin with.
have you've exhausted all considerable options, will another untried option one day just appear during random thought? with any luck, yes.
if you don't get it right the 1st time, there are still 1000's if not more increasingly educated attempts that could produce better results.

we really do only use a small percentage of our cap'ability'.

[Low-Q]

there is truth written in what you just wrote.

as luck would have it, or by not trying to be lucky about it, thoughout history is that science is able to accept when it is sometimes wrong,
in order to correct itself accordingly.

so if anyone gets the notion to attempt to redefine a theory and possibly becomes correct , they surely wont be burned at the stake by any emotionally stable scientists.

careful constructive criticism is like food for the brave well meaning experimenter, even though everyone sometimes offers negative charged critical insight, the critics too feel they themselves are correct, and in most cases they are.

should you give up? not unless you want to. you could say: at least i tried,  the critics were right to begin with.
have you've exhausted all considerable options, will another untried option one day just appear during random thought? with any luck, yes.
if you don't get it right the 1st time, there are still 1000's if not more increasingly educated attempts that could produce better results.

we really do only use a small percentage of our cap'ability'.

I can't agree more. Well written! Never stop asking and trying. However, I have a feeling that if the physics as we know it was not true, and over unity was possible, so would the physical laws been so different that we could never predict the trajectory of a rocket or a probe sent into space, and make it land within a precision of a few hundred meters on Mars. It would never been possible to predict the performance of a car engine at the lab, it would not be possible to find unknown places with GPS. Because if over unity existed there would not longer be a relation between time, energy, mass, and gravity.

Vidar

[sm0ky2]

... I have a feeling that if the physics as we know it was not true, and over unity was possible, so would the physical laws been so different that we could never predict the trajectory of a rocket or a probe sent into space, and make it land within a precision of a few hundred meters on Mars. It would never been possible to predict the performance of a car engine at the lab, it would not be possible to find unknown places with GPS. Because if over unity existed there would not longer be a relation between time, energy, mass, and gravity.

Vidar

these assumptions you make here seem ridiculous. Simply because we do not fully understand every physical phenomena, or that our theories need to be adjusted, does not mean we have to throw away all the progress we have made towards what we think we know.

Our current model of physics relates equalities in the experiments we observe. Overunity, by definition, is an inequality. Therefore, it cannot be defined by any known equation.

Many people confuse what thermodynamic theory actually states, and what types of system analysis it actually Applies to.
We can't even close off a system, much less pretend that every conceivable system can be closed off from all outside energy transfer from
the surrounding environment, space or beyond.

That being said, there are systems that cannot even be defined by thermodynamic analysis. Gravity and magnetism being among the list.
What sayeth the laws of Thermodynamics about Boyle's Flask? Or a vintage 80's Coleman Cooler w/ a jet nozzle made to refill itself?

Take a nuclear reactor for instance, is the available energy simply a matter of E = mc^2?
We take exponentially more energy out of this reaction in the form of heat than can be accounted for by a loss in mass. The waste from the reactor is nearly the same mass as the fuel that was inserted into it. The reaction is defined clearly by elementary physics, however this system cannot be described by thermodynamic analysis. It is not an equality.
Much like Overunity, the mathematics of the chain-reaction of atomic radiation, as a function of radius, is an inequality.
like constructive interference in signal processing, coherent radiant convection with heat, simultaneously firing two coherent-phase lasers,
Tesla's Oscillators, or humming into a tin can tied to a string.....

There are electromagnetic inequalities defined by Maxwell, however we tend to ignore these things, because they do not fit into our currently accepted model.

The existence or possibility of a system you would call "overunity", or one in which the energies are not fully defined,
poses no threat to our current realm of knowledge.
All of our completely defined systems will not fail to operate, if we find a system that does not behave as expected.
That is just silly....

Our current model does a good job at defining systems we currently know and use.
We shouldn't expect airplanes to fall out of the sky, the moment Jimmy the inventor makes a wheel seem to turn itself.

however, we must also not forget a short time ago before the invention of aerodynamics.




There is still one major problem we have when it comes to magnetism.
There is a scale of events that occur in or around a magnetic field that are completely irrespective of TIME.
What exactly does that do to your "equations"?
oh,... we can ignore that right? because if we are observing it, it becomes relativistic.....
but what about from other perspectives? non-relativistic ones..... Where did the "T" go?
acceleration is a factor of distance,.. if the distance is at an arc, What is the velocity? hmm...
doesn't this look a lot like a gravitational slingshot? what is the energy involved in that maneuver? from a "thermodynamic" perspective?
Now, take the "T" away......
There's nothing in magnetic theory that prevents us from creating an OU device.
It's simply a matter of us creating the right kind of magnetic arrangement.
Which ordinary magnets, simply do not do in most configurations.
But we have the math for situations that WOULD, if we have specifically designed magnets.

H.J. attempted to teach us his methods, very few fully understand what he was truly talking about.
he was able to create one of these "OU" magnetic situations artificially, by forcing various magnets and their fields
to do things they did not like to do.
meaning, taping or gluing them with like poles facing to compress the field to its maximum.
then an approaching magnet will exceed this max and cause the pole to temporarily flip.
This can be observed using magnetic instruments to have flux intensities thousands of times greater than the
strength of any of the magnets involved. and HJ has pages and pages of documentation that are now becoming part of the public record.

This is a real situation that cannot be described by thermodynamics. We simply do not know the system parameters, the energy state of all the atoms in the magnetic material and their particular alignment, and how that radiation stacks up during the magnetic moment when the poles flip.
We can describe it, with relatively close accuracy, but it is an inequality.

Another inequality is the wick effect. We can describe the behavior, and state the cause to be the gravitational gradient and atmospheric pressure.
But, at the end of the day, we have an OU situation that cannot be defined by thermodynamics.
Whether it be water rising 3mm in a coffee straw, or a redwood tree lifting 10,000 Gallons 1,000 ft into the air in a single day.

What is declared "impossible" by physics, has historically been disproven.
We even have a QM number that defines the % of possibility of everything that is not possible.
It is good to place faith in the past 200 years of physics, but who are any of us to think we know everything there Is to know?

I for one, have seen enough to know that either we DON'T know,.. or they don't WANT us to.....
and from my experiences with the national accredidation system, I would lean towards the second one.

[sm0ky2]

When you force the magnetic poles to approach each other, it creates an asymmetry in the field.
you can see this using a magnetic viewing film
the flux density at the approaching poles increases and the field becomes physically distorted.
you can use this tool and other magnetic sensory equipment to shape the field the way you want it to be.
this is magnetic field compression.
When you take the magnets away from each other, the fields will return to their normal shape and an evenly dispersed flux density.
it is important to note the effects at the opposite poles while compressing the field.

this is the first thing to learn, before you get into any "pole flipping" or any other high-level H.J. tech
observe the field, see/feel its shape and strength as you sculpt it to be the way you desire.

[ramset]

Now Those are some beautiful posts ,You reminded me of a task I meant to do a few weeks ago regarding the videos from Howards home .


I also love the redwood example and have pondered this "wick" many times,

have a good holiday, may your carbon foot print be greatly diminished in the coming days and be replaced with much more "planet friendly" technologies .

respectfully

Chet