Roll on the 20th June

[ramset]

THANKS EVG tick tock  Chet

[bullsnbears1]

Thanks for that info.  So depending on the strength of the field needed transfered, a "contact-less" switch could work.  I agree - huge...
The design/shape/strength/airgap etc. of the components would still be important.

And about this (archers) statement:

"So if there is no issue of a sticking point at the contact, no matter how small it was anyway, as you can imagine there is no field drag or wall from that small point of the field."

There should still be some field drag/wall applied in this setup - just smaller?  And even with an airgap - you will still have a (smaller) "sticking point" - just not at the (no longer there) contact point - but somewhere in space. (and a smaller "charge" transfer)
- - -
P.S. On further thinking - the airgap vs. contact design seems relative.
Airgap = smaller sticking point/wall/drag  =  smaller charge transfer
Contact= larger sticking point/wall/drag = larger charge transfer

(...with both solutions being far less than without the 'switch'.)
The airgap solution would seem practical only if you need a very small charge transfer?

PPS:  having tapered contact points makes breaking it easier.  And even add in a 'sideways' sliding motion into the mix rather than straight up and away....(like you have to do to get 2 strong magnets apart)

I'm pretty much in the dark here. I haven't been working on this problem at all besides skimming this forum.
But, just from reading & visualization I take it as this ( and Archer pretty much spells this out):

1)The last row of magnets on the track consist of binary ferros on a piece of steel.
2) There is a steel "outrigger" on the roller that is attached to the neos of the roller.
3) The outrigger is longer than the roller. It runs forward of the roller & passes beside the stell/ferros , not touching it, but within 10mm of the steel/ferros.
4) This activates the track in front of the roller.
5) As the roller passes by, the outrigger also passes, de-activating the steel/ferros & eliminating the wall.
This is obviously just a guess on my part.

[capthook]

The design/shape/strength/airgap etc. of the components would still be important.


P.S. On further thinking - the airgap vs. contact design seems relative.
Airgap = smaller sticking point/wall/drag  =  smaller charge transfer
Contact= larger sticking point/wall/drag = larger charge transfer

(...with both solutions being far less than without the 'switch'.)
The airgap solution would seem practical only if you need a very small charge transfer?

PPS:  having tapered contact points makes breaking it easier.  And even add in a 'sideways' sliding motion into the mix rather than straight up and away....(like you have to do to get 2 strong magnets apart)

Then again - provided you can get enough 'charge transfer' with an airgap (which I suppose you could do by adjusting your air gap smaller) the airgap design seems it would be superior.

The elimination of friction with a contact point for one.

And for two - I'm now thinking the two AREN'T extactly relative?
Contact = larger sticking = larger transfer
Airgap = smaller sticking = smaller (but not 1-1 over contact) transfer = larger net

And still - the specifics of the components and how the field is shaped will be important....

Will be doing more testing the next 24 hrs. will post results....

[bullsnbears1]

OH Geeze

http://surphzup.com/gpage5.html

[Xaverius]

Now back to science... Nuclear reactions are not OU/FE.

Fission and Fusion are OU in the fact that they produce more energy output than required to start the reaction.  For that matter so is gasoline combustion.   

However, they are not "free energy", they require fuel.