This is a quote of somone on another forums explaning to the other forum members what I ment when I was trying to discribe an anomile I encountered while playing with magnets

The orriganal post is here
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17702&page=1

QuoteFact (as observed by Alan): 5 cylindrical magnets are placed (in parallel) end-to-end some small distance apart, in such a way that all may spin freely along one axis (said axis is perpendicular to the line of magnets). Naturally, the magnets spin, and come to rest in a line (with north and south poles facing one another). Now Alan expends energy X to rotate the first magnet 180 degrees, and fixes its position with a clamp. As a result, the second magnet spins to line up with the first, potentially generating energy Y. The third, fourth, and fifth magnets follow suit, potentially generating a total of ((N-1)*Y) energy, where in this case N=5.

Now, no matter how small Y is, a large enough N will cause the energy output to exceed X. When this happens, the first magnet can then be rotated 180 degrees and re-clamped, which will cause the entire process to reverse itself, again generating an amount of potential energy greater than X.

Now there are two assumptions necessary to raise N past the experimental value of 5, and have this "OU" machine work. I suspect that one or both of these are incorrect, and as a result we'll never see OU:
1. X is constant over all values of N (or, similarly, X is constant for all N higher than a certain number).
2. No matter what the size of N, spinning the first magnet will always generate a spin in the second, and third, etc. You'll never enter a resting state where two adjacent magnets are facing in opposite directions.

Now, can someone help us understand how either of these two assumptions are false?

We have also decided we may need logeritmic spacing between the magnets, although by my observations we don't I was only using a few magnets

The next Question came from another source other than the thread I linked but it is relevent

Q: The energy required to turn magnet 1 with 4 other magnets (some indirectly) holding it in place is greater than the energy required to turn magnet 1 without any other magnets. X is larger than you think it is. Have you factored this in?

A: Yes. However big X is you can always make N bigger with more magnets, However X is an almost fixed value after N becomes bigger than a cirtain amount.

again Im quoteing from one of teslamotors1's posts, as I guess you may not wan't to read though the pages of posts on the other forum to get at all the progress made so far

QuoteI've played around with magnets of the type and strength that Alan mentions, and I can say from experience that if you line up 20 magnets in the way that he describes, then remove all but the outside two (leaving you with two magnets that are spaced very far apart), the first magnet will not "see" the last magnet (in other words, it's not influenced by it in any measurable way). The energy required to spin the first magnet, in this case, is the same whether you have the last magnet there or not. From this, I deduce that after the 20th magnet (or so), additional magnets do not have a DIRECT effect on the first magnet.

Now, that still leaves the possibility of an INDIRECT effect, which is what I believe you are referring to (please correct me if I'm wrong) -- in other words, the force required to turn the first magnet is related to the force required to turn each and every magnet. It seems like, if we fix magnets 2 through N in place (rather than allowing them to rotate freely), this INDIRECT effect is eliminated, since magnets 2 through N are no longer turning. This would then mean that the force required to turn the first magnet is based only on the first 2-19 magnets (or so), since beyond this limit no DIRECT effect is felt (as I've posited).

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the first magnet is spun so quickly that its rotation is complete before the second (and third, etc) magnet moves at all. Since the magnets haven't moved yet, this would seem to simulate magnets 2 through N being fixed in position, effectively eliminating the INDIRECT effect. If this is true, then many more magnets can be added to the line, all without increasing the work required to turn the first magnet.

Please can I have some feedback

INTERESTING,

this souds like the same thing as STEVEN MARKS "KICKS" are made of.  have you tried it?  it looks like the same princeblels would apply.  shutting off the magnetic field before it reaches the end of the line, would seem to be like shutting off the power supply of eletricity before it reaches the end of the line.  however, it seems with the magnets to be alot less complicated because of the speed with which  it has to happen.

sam

alan2here,

I really wonder : Is this a mind-game  ? The discussion leads your attention to the wrong point ( see at bottom) Practically I can not see a way you can arrange such an array because all magnets are attracted to each other before you even get a chance to make a move.
There are two ways to practically do this : you have to attach each magnet to a perpendicular spin-axis ( bearing) or you use ball-magnets which rest in a hole-array.

All magnets in the row form ONE magnet. Each additional magnet added to the line increases the total magnetic field-strenght ( just like voltage increases with condensers in series ) within the array

You have to distinguish to cases :

A) all magnets can flip freely ( no load )
B) N-1 pick-up coils are placed close to each magnet and under load ( resistor cross the       
    both terminals of each coil thus current is drawn from induction while domino-effect
    occures)

Only case B) is worth to consider further for evaluating the facts. Only in this case you can measure the energy to turn the first magnet. No OU possible. Think for yourself

It is always the same old problem that even educated people are  not able to distinguish between force and energy. Force is not energy !


Kator