Roll on the 20th June

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi Chet
I could be wrong but to me theres two things pulling the attracting magnets apart one is gravity the other is the electromagnet opposites force pushing the attracting magnets apart and to do so that electromagnet has to use extra energy not only the energy to push against gravity but also the energy to push the attracting magnets apart this means more energy out from the electromagnet, with shields maybe just gravity is working to pull the attracting magnets apart.
Take Care Chet
Graham

[Sprocket]

Actually, fb, Pons and Fleishmann were railroaded in an appalling display of bias in science.  You bring up a serious issue, namely that the inherently conservative nature of the scientific establishment is a major hurdle for anyone attempting to show phenomena that do not fit within the existing paradigm.  The experiment your professor did may have ruled-out a particular mechanism, but by itself, this does not invalidate the claim that excess heat was being generated in their very different setup.  Only a very few precise replicas of the original experiment were done, and the loudest "debunking" came from the "hot fusion" researchers who were already benefiting from enormous volumes of grant money from the department of energy.  And even then, it is claimed that at least one of these replications (at MIT), arbitrarily "shifted" data which tended to support P&F's claims, so as to make it appear that no excess heating was taking place.  The DoE panel that announced that P & F 's claim was false was clearly biased toward a predetermined null result.  Since then, there have been many peer-reviewed and published studies showing excess heat, tritium production, and other evidence of nuclear reactions in similar setups.

This is what confuses me about many of the protaganists involved in the FE energy debate - yours was a reasonable, unbiased view (imo) and one I agree with, based on what I have read over the years, yet the learned individual you were responding to holds a completely opposite view - there can be only one of you correct!  The fact that Dr. Eugene Mallove quit is job at MIT in protest at what he considered "results-tampering" by MIT at the time, (and was later killed in mysterious circumstances) and that one of the imminent scientists at MIT then (whose name escapes me), interviewed 10-15 years later, freely admitted that the tell-tale sign of fusion, tritium, had been detected, is all the evidence I need.  But as you point out, it's validity has also been confirmed many times by independent labs since then.

Take another example, the TPU.  Many EE's purportedly did their best to find out how this "hoax" was perpetrated.  When they realised that the technologhy was indeed 'real', they were suddenly "not officially involved", instead, skulking back into the anonominity of whatever hole  they originated from.  Now compare that to their role in the Steorn debacle, where their most 'respected' figureheads were wheeled out before the media to poke fun at the notion of FE.   Yet, we are expected to hope that these self-same E.E's will impartially 'peer-review'  these kind of technologies!...   

Bottom-line, the whole of established sciene is nothing but a lap-dog to bigoil, told what-is and what-is-not allowed, and they obediently toe the line.  Yet many of the so-called 'scientists' here seem to almost demand respect for churning out the same old scientific dogma, which basically is saying "FE's not real, move-along, there's nothing to see..."

[sm0ky2]

the "attracting" magnets are at the top, gravity is already fighting this.
you dont want it to be strong enough to stop the wheel, this upper magnet simply adds a 'boost' to the lower (repelling) magnet/electro-magnet. If the rods are sticking to the upper magnet  - move it further away from the wheel.  the electro-magnet should only need to fight partial-gravity, not the other magnet.

the main problem im having with the build is the side-torque of the shafts, inside the tube.

Archer - if yur out there i could use some help on this part - do the 'rods' and 'tubes' need to be closely matched, so the 'rod' doesnt twist inside of the tube??

problem im having is this twisting-movement puts a lot of pressure between the rod and tube, so that the friction is stopping it from functioning (sliding), and i just get a 'bounce-back' against the lower mag-field, from the magnets on the lower end of the rods.

when i position them manually, the rod moves and gavity does pull it back around, but this malfunctioning of the rod (in my mocked-up build) stops it from working.

other than that, it seems like this thing wants to work...  i'll keep everyone posted.
-- as for my pendulum hammer experiment , i didnt forget - im just still working out the logistics of that, as i want the experiment to be as "accurate" as one can get, with multiple tests.

it would seem, that archer was right in saying you can use pretty much anything you 'find' to make this with.
read what he says carefully. i think someone posted his instructions earlier in this thread. he had removed the full explanation from his site last time i checked......

the machine itself is simple, exactly like he described. the mechanics of mass-to-mass and mass-to-magnetics will drive you insane once you see this in action.  i have yet to get it to perpetuate, but it "seems like" a rod issue, not a gravitational issue. when the magnets are alligned it 'works', but entering the field to get them there stops me because the rods arent moving up like they're supposed to, they twist sideways....

[fastbreeder]

I wasn't criticizing his device; with its constantly-changing center of rotation, it's far too complex to model with pencil and paper and predict results.  Have at it!  What I was criticizing was his method of criticism.

and tensor - I know Cold Fusion was a mess.  I think Ben Stein's film was trying to make that point that people with non-standard ideas get a lot of hostility from people whose careers are dependent on the current way of thinking.  What's worse, and I'm as guilty as anyone, was that there was another guy doing research who was about to publish on an academic curiosity of observing what appeared to be fusion events at a very miniscule rate, and Pons/Fleischman jumped the gun by holding a press conference to announce their results, claiming much higher fusion events.  That other guy got lumped in as being a snake oil salesman; it tarnished his legitimate research.  And I don't even remember his name.  Google says Steven E. Jones.

As I said before, everyone should have a healthy, but not terminal amount of skepticism.  Rather than quoting the "people didn't think the heavier-than-air flight would work" line, you should mention that Albert Einstein never believed in the inherent indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, which has been proven successful at describing events five orders of magnitude beyond its original formulation.  Einstein was wrong, dead wrong, about QM.  Spot-on about special & general relativity, though!

Also, at the end of the 19th century, a famous physics lecturer was trying to dissuade people from even entering the field, because he felt everything had been discovered/explained with the exception of a few pesky details like Roentgen film blackening and the photoelectric effect, and all that was left was measuring things (using Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian electromagnetism) to more decimal places.  Well, Roentgen film blackening and the photoelectric effect lead to quantum mechanics and the structure of the atom, both decidedly non-Newtonian concepts.

So as has been said before, 'peer review' just consists of people working in the same field offering constructive criticism to the description of a device or discovery.  Carpet-bombing with f-bombs and calling people stupid is hardly 'constructive'.

[libra_spirit]

Smokey2,

Could you throw up a photo of your setup?

Sincerely,
Dave L