Roll on the 20th June

[dirt diggler]

I don't know if I would call Quinn a quiter, I think he still has some suprises for us. He is just sick of trying to explain his ideas and would rather just show us what he has. I'm sure there are others like me who are still working on projects based on the info he has given us, If mine works before the 20th of june, he will be getting most of the credit

[kude]

@exx

I would love to see a model show Quinn's idea. Without getting into the moving rods thing, it would be revealing to see what the slightest repulsion from 7 am to 1 pm does. I guess you want to cause the slightest deflection to the orbit of the magnet on the end of your straw or stick to cause the slighest imbalance and let gravity do its thing on the other side. Maybe bismuth would work well enough to cause the deflection. Too much repulsion and I fear it would stall. I guess you could use a stop watch to see if the spin time increases. Its a starting point.

[capthook]

Archer - why the thin skin?  Reading your ramblings that are often incoherent, laden with profanities and hate, often unsupported with good science, and very poorly constructed as to grammar, spelling and thought flow, requires a very THICK skin.  And your obsession with disparraging Newton is sad.

Yet this community of forward, outside-the-box thinkers and builders has been willing to entertain the notion that you might have something of value to offer.

For many, the red flags were there from the beginning. The story offered by you from the start was enough to classify your claims as suspect at best.

?? You created the most incredible device in the history of mankind - that would turn science on it's ear and provide free energy for all mankind, 2 years ago - but you destroyed it because you considered it a small toy - and further proposition that you didn't want to be responsible for the suffering that would follow when the oil producing countries lost their primary source of income? ??

Oh yeah - I believe that one for sure! (hurmpph - NOT)

And now that folks are discussing and examining the details of your claims - you are going to "take your toys home and not play anymore" as someone put it.  I mean what - we don't just blindly accept your claims as fact and want to examine/discuss the details and that makes us the bad guys?

As I have said before - the goal you are pursing is to be applauded.
You obviously have engineering skills and intellect.
The way you present and defend your ideas is severely lacking.

The overarching idea behind your device may have merit and examining new possibilities is to be encouraged.

The question becomes one of engineering.

1) Weight/size of wheel
2) strength/size of tube magnets
3) strength, size and airgap of perm drive mag
4) strength and airgap of electromag
5) electromag specs: coil size, wire size, # of turns, core size/material, pulse input energy required
6) generator design specs

I'll say again that providing details (when/if you do so) of the these types would greatly increase the odds of replicating the device.  And if you can't get the device to work, sharing it here with the details of why/why not may provide insight and assistance to your project.  You should consider this forum as a resource rather than a hindrance.

And if you choose to communicate further, I'm sure many would appreciate a more civil tone and a spellcheck.

CH

[MrGrynch]

If you would like a different (in my opinion, more plausible) explanation, please see my theory paper:
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe.pdf
Also an experiment concept to prove or disprove the hypothesis, which will also prove or disprove a key feature of general relativity.
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe2.pdf
Cheers,
-Dave

Hi Dave.  That is an interesting theory.

A couple of notes:
I'd like to point out that you used the word "principal" in your paper, where you clearly meant "principle".  Of course, this is just minor housekeeping, but I thought it best to alert you anyway.

On the experimental setup, using an air-track or maglev  will introduce all kinds of noise.  I would suggest a Cavendish-style torsion balance instead.  The force could be applied as a small torque on the wire.  You can measure the ocillation of the torsional pendulum (say by bouncing a laser off a mirror attached to the wire), and from this derive the magnitude of the gravitational force.

Thanks, Zero!

I started with the idea of a torsion balance, but there is a problem with using one.  Any force applied on the torsion wire, and not the gravitating mass itself will see the full inertial effect of the wire since it is not involved gravitationally, and would not see the inertia-reducing effect of the gravitation.  If inertia is reduced by gravity, you would never see it in the wire.  The best option is to apply the inertial force to the same mass that is moving gravitationally.

I agree that an air track would be noisy, but with a large enough fixed mass, it should be possible to engineer the noise below the acceleration rate to a reasonable level.  The large mass in my experiment will likely need to be several tons for the baseline mass, with two others that are double and triple that mass for the follow-on phases.  As long as the results are good enough to show the effect, then perhaps a space-based experiment will be in the cards.

Best regards,
-Dave

[ramset]

Whats with the spell check? guy's from all over the world come here   what would poor Macedonia do  [sorry Mac]    Chet