Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

@Exx
Yeah I was the one thats said it was a lot of trouble for what you get.. And hell yeah it is fragile.. I shattered one.. And then proceeded to tear out another one.. And did..
However,I found my extremely weak Fridge mag seemed to worked better. (the ones that you pin up shit to the fridge with)
When putting it to use in the wheel I think it actually works better if you have a small repel force going on first.. Then when the switch hits it, it reverses poles to match the neo on the switch which is aligned for attraction to the wheel mags. Then when the switch moves past the point of attraction per say.. The small repel force adds to movement of the wheel.. Just some thoughts.  Might even be able to move the wheel with just switches and no mag track if this holds true.
EDIT -- of course this is just conjecture at this moment.. Waiting on my circle cutter to arrive so I can cut my plastic properly..

QUIT THAT!

I'm trying to avoid actual productiveness and you keep making me think of new off-shoots (and you know how popular they are. )

What if the roller (by doing just as it's named) rotates a mag (maybe extended past the exterior of the wheel and being the flywheel weight and outside the roller field) and it travels influencing a sine wave arrangement of ferro extensions  laid out in relation to the ferros so that magnetic influence of the track (which is assumed now to be entirely populated by a continuous track of ferrite arrays) is both attracting in front, and repelling behind?

Gets rid of the wall, eh?

How 'bout fragging that mag zapping factor that the MkE (and maybe tri-gates) arrays may have?

Now quit it and give a man time to get things done!

Seriously, nice idea.

[therealrasta]

   You bring up a real solid point rasta. Say use a much smaller neo? Just not sure if that would damage the little one. I do know that if you over power a ferite mag with a strong neo you will demag the ferite. That right from the magnet shop I deal with. I may have to call and ask that.
   Would be a nice way to make it disengage  then. Repel at first until the big mag comes by and changes the polarity and sucks in the other one until its by then repels it back again to let it past.

Time to rock the house with the house mouse.

thaelin

Thanks.. I actually think it does have some merit.. Time will tell.

QUIT THAT!

I'm trying to avoid actual productiveness and you keep making me think of new off-shoots (and you know how popular they are. )

What if the roller (by doing just as it's named) rotates a mag (maybe extended past the exterior of the wheel and being the flywheel weight and outside the roller field) and it travels influencing a sine wave arrangement of ferro extensions  laid out in relation to the ferros so that magnetic influence of the track (which is assumed now to be entirely populated by a continuous track of ferrite arrays) is both attracting in front, and repelling behind?

Gets rid of the wall, eh?

How 'bout fragging that mag zapping factor that the MkE (and maybe tri-gates) arrays may have?

Now quit it and give a man time to get things done!

Seriously, nice idea.

Edited to be less obvious -- Sorry I took a smoke break and thats what happens when I do.

[madsen]

The physicist is saying there are losses in using conservative forces. Magnetism sometime is and sometimes is not a conservative force and this physicist beleives it is whereas the premise of the track with a key is that it is not.

In the videos we have seen some tracks exhibit a wall or the conservative side showing up, and some don't. Isn't the key a solution one that attempts to overcome the conservative nature of the magnets in the track. I'm sure there are reasons why the wall is not so prominent in some other travellers and tracks.

I checked the physicist's quote again, and and am not quite clear on what he is saying in the part mentioning "losses"---originally I thought he was talking about the inevitable nonconservative forces at play such as friction. 

In any case, if  all forces in a system are conservative, then there should be no losses whatsoever, by definition.  So I can't imagine a physicist saying that there are "losses in using conservative forces".

And again, the point of the wikipedia article, as I understand it, is that whether you want to call magnetic force conservative or not is a matter of definition and that there are good arguments on both sides.  The article isn't saying, AFAIK, that magnetic force is sometimes conservative and sometimes not.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[yoyo]

WTF u could rebuild the first device in 1 week and prove to the world it is possible instead u go for months and months and months spewing ever more bullshit u r full of shit
tell us the answers like these

Archer please tell us about the device that you destroyed. I am referring to the working perpetual motion machine that you destroyed 2 years ago. This claim is what brought most of us here. I think that it is about time that you gave us some answers.

How did it work?

How long did it run under it's own power?

How much power did it put out?

Did it actually work or are you just pulling everybodys leg? What were the dimmensions?  Did it use electromagnets or just regular magnets?  If electromagnets how were they made, core dimensions, wire gauge, number of turns, winding dimensions.  If not electromagnets, how many magnets, what size, what strength, and in what arrangement?
If you made the first perpetual motion machine in history, why would you destroy it rather than accept the Nobel Prize or at least end the suffering of millions and millions and millions of people?

[therealrasta]

WTF u could rebuild the first device in 1 week and prove to the world it is possible instead u go for months and months and months spewing ever more bullshit u r full of shit
tell us the answers like these

Archer please tell us about the device that you destroyed. I am referring to the working perpetual motion machine that you destroyed 2 years ago. This claim is what brought most of us here. I think that it is about time that you gave us some answers.

How did it work?

How long did it run under it's own power?

How much power did it put out?

Did it actually work or are you just pulling everybodys leg? What were the dimmensions?  Did it use electromagnets or just regular magnets?  If electromagnets how were they made, core dimensions, wire gauge, number of turns, winding dimensions.  If not electromagnets, how many magnets, what size, what strength, and in what arrangement?
If you made the first perpetual motion machine in history, why would you destroy it rather than accept the Nobel Prize or at least end the suffering of millions and millions and millions of people?

@Archer

Don't even respond to that.. Just ignore and keep on moving forward.