Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi sm0ky2
Your right the best way I have found to shield magnetic forces is to add to them, as you add iron to them the field decreases in other words your stretching the field so its not spilling out as much, this cuts down the field when your a distance away but makes the field stronger when your close because the lines of flux are closer together, I use iron because as the field stretches the iron weakens it until the field is so weak it can't be senced, I have found one big piece of iron doesn't work as well as alot of little pieces of iron joined by the magnetic flux as you join them you will see when the field is weak enough the iron will not attract to the last piece any more, also if you wanted to move the field away from a magnet you join iron to the magnet like I said but you overlap the iron so the magnet you are moving will still attract to the iron and keep moving until the iron is so weak it can't move the magnet any more.
There is no perfect shield and I have found rather then shielding a magnet its easier to divert its flux away from where you don't want it using ever iron or other magnets.
Take Care sm0ky2
Graham

[Omnibus]

@Yadaraf,

Well, call it hypothesis if you wish, it's OK with me. My problem is that we already have a proven way of producing energy out of no energy source and that's the real scientifically shocking fact, established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why not go along that line of research and not stick to hypotheses which not only haven't been proven to be viable but are also along the trivial, foreseeable paths of thinking. Indeed, there are natural resources out there. There are waterfalls, coal mines, oil fields etc. and all these are being exploited for the purposes of obtaining energy. The trivial line of thinking is to look further into such available resources, say ocean tides, wind, sun light, natural temperature differences, hydrogen from splitting water and carry it on into the tectonic movements, cosmic rays, naturally existing EM field around our planet and what not. These are trivial, foreseeable ways to look for new energy sources. Many groups are devoting their efforts to even more trivial but secure, as a way of funding, efforts--just looking for ways to increase the efficiency of the already existing machines.

Here, however, we're talking about something fundamentally different, not in any way stemming from or related to the above approaches. Here we're seeking ways to implement the already established production of energy out of no energy source into a machine which will produce that out-of-nothing-energy continuously. There's a hell of a lot of difference between this and all of the above, including all the bogus speculations for zpe, energy from the vacuum and the like.

So, here we're not only talking about free energy which exists out there and we are set to find ways to tap into it. We're not only talking about overunity, that is, obtaining for our practical purposes more energy, extracting it from the vast free resources out there through spending less energy for the purpose. We're talking about something, fundamentally, revolutionary different--continuous obtaining of energy out of no source, having already found a way to produce energy out of nothing discontinuously.

I think you understand that difference but I felt I'd mention it once again.

[sm0ky2]

@ Graham - using other magnets is the type of diversion i was refering to. using metal to divert it is pretty much the same as shielding, just on a a gradient, instead of into one mass..

using more magnets, not only maintains the original test field, but also amplifies it while also diverting the repulsion zone. this of course changes the test conditions, and therefore must be treated as an entirely different gate array.

also if you want to loop it back aorund, your 'roller' generally passes back through the field you just diverted...
i know there are other directions (up?) you can run the diversion, but it gets to a point where it begins to effect the action of the gate. thus making the now "working" loop inneffective. does that make sense?




@ OMNI,
               theres a VERY fine line between unity (PM), and Overunity. 

Overunity - is NOT perpetual motion, nor CAN it be, in a closed loop system.
              each cycle, if there is excess energy imparted into the system, the next cycle will be accelerated.
and the next, and the next, and the next until the device destroys itself.  Meaning, you cant have a device that accelerates, AND continues to run indefinately. it will reach the mechanical 'speed limit' of the device's construction, OR if its build strong enough, the tensil strength of the materials themselves, but it WILL destroy itself....  [Magnetic systems accellerate exponentially]


Perpetual Motion - is Perfect Unity. ANY and ALL Overunity energy, MUST be disposed of  (or stored) before the start of the next cycle, so as to maintain the frequency of the device cycles. (not accelerating or decellerating). Now there are lots of ideas that come to mind of how to do this, (wind resistance, physical 'load', electronic 'load', any load..)

Now, from the standpoint of physics - i dont see a 'magnetic' device in the same way that i see a physical device. in a physical device - sure you can't get energy out of nothing. this is true.

but we are manipulating force fields here - which themselves are energy wating to be set into motion.
like dropping a rock into our atmosphere from space.....  the natural world is constantly changing a a result of magnetic forces.

So i dont view a magnetic arrangement that produces excess energy as a violation of any laws of physics.
i think the biggest problem is how people interpret those laws, especially the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Which i would argue does not apply to magnetic interactions, they are independent from energy/thermal/physical interactions.
While magnetic interactions can cause these types of interactions to occur - the magnetic interaction can occur regardless of the status of energy in the system.
[ the exception being when that energy creates or otherwise manipulates a magnetic field].

I have proven to myself nearly a decade ago that overunity with magnets was possible - when a purely magnetic device nearly killed me. That was when i first really started playing with magnets again.
some guy had a video of a device in the internet ( imagine that!....) and i decided to play with what he was playing with... and got off on my own tangent. 

prior to that i thought i had a complete understanding of magnetics (as was taught to me).  And believed such tihngs were not possible. 

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

Your acceleration argument is incorrect. Recall that as it accelerates forces of friction also increase until a dynamic equilibrium is established between the tendency for acceleration and the opposing it friction. Thus, after the initial acceleration a steady state is attained whereby the rpm are no longer increased. So that argument against perpetual motion is out.

Further, magnetic devices are physical devices and forces are not energy. That has to be clearly understood. Also, CoE is a universal principle in physics and it is supposed to cover also the magnetic devices. Violation of CoE in a magnetic device overthrows CoE as a general principle in physics. In addition, violation of CoE invalidates also the second principle of thermodynamics as a general principle. Thus, violation of CoE is a very serious matter with far reaching consequences.

I don?t know what you mean by saying that you proved to yourself that overunity with magnets was possible when a purely magnetic device nearly killed you but one thing is categorically certain?a purely magnetic device cannot prove overunity (violation of CoE). The fact that the magnetic field itself is a conservative field and CoE can never be violated there is one of those absolute truths in physics which can never be challenged.

[Yadaraf]

@Yadaraf,

Your acceleration argument is incorrect. Recall that as it accelerates forces of friction also increase until a dynamic equilibrium is established between the tendency for acceleration and the opposing it friction. Thus, after the initial acceleration a steady state is attained whereby the rpm are no longer increased. So that argument against perpetual motion is out.

Further, magnetic devices are physical devices and forces are not energy. That has to be clearly understood. Also, CoE is a universal principle in physics and it is supposed to cover also the magnetic devices. Violation of CoE in a magnetic device overthrows CoE as a general principle in physics. In addition, violation of CoE invalidates also the second principle of thermodynamics as a general principle. Thus, violation of CoE is a very serious matter with far reaching consequences.

I don?t know what you mean by saying that you proved to yourself that overunity with magnets was possible when a purely magnetic device nearly killed you but one thing is categorically certain?a purely magnetic device cannot prove overunity (violation of CoE). The fact that the magnetic field itself is a conservative field and CoE can never be violated there is one of those absolute truths in physics which can never be challenged.

Omni,

Your reply should be directed @sm0ky2, not me.

Cheers

Yada..
.