My blueprint and white papers on my magnetism run generator

[btalex1990]

I just made a revision and decided to add it as another upload to scribd.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11452998/Blueprints-for-the-Magnetism-Powered-Generator-R2D3

[jadaro2600]

End to end facing ( n - n ) through a coil will not generate as much electricity as  ( n - s ) facing magnets, the setup will create electric flow.  I just don't know how much.

The magnetic fields will not cross frames, they'll just distend to one another's ends at sharper spline bends.

[dandman]

Hi There, I read about a patent allowed in 1991 I think it was. A magnet powered motor using opposing magnetic fields in a circle with the magnets set at an angle of 37 deg if memory serves. The only issue was lack of control of speed, without any opposition the invention just continued to accelerate. YOU KEEP LOOKING BUDDY. forget the scoffin boffins whos minds have been trained not test the limits set by mens so called laws written a couple of hundred years ago.

Cheers

[chitta]

I thought it is worth making a couple of observations:

(i)  At one time the renowned scientists of their time thought earth was the centre of the universe and that it was a flat disc.

(ii)  About a 100 years ago a philosopher deduced that universe was created with a big bang. Scientific community dismissed this idea.  Some 40 years later a couple of scientists set out to prove this theory to be wrong.  Their conclusion was quite the opposite.

I find the  idea of single pole magnets to be fascinating.

[hoptoad]

I thought it is worth making a couple of observations:

(i)  At one time the renowned scientists of their time thought earth was the centre of the universe and that it was a flat disc.

(ii)  About a 100 years ago a philosopher deduced that universe was created with a big bang. Scientific community dismissed this idea.  Some 40 years later a couple of scientists set out to prove this theory to be wrong.  Their conclusion was quite the opposite.

I find the  idea of single pole magnets to be fascinating.

The big bang theory is so full of holes you could use it to sieve water. It is a theory that suits religious creationists because it implies a beginning and a need for something (god ??) to create that beginning. The big bang theory requires so many ad-hoc assumptions and add-ons to make it work, all of which have not been verified by emperical data. It has become a joke.
In the last 30 years, with major advancements in astronomical tools, the collective sum of evidence against big bang theory is greater than the one and only piece of evidence which has been used to prop it up. That prop is the observation of galaxial redshift, which has other explanations than just that of an expanding universe from a central big bang.
The following link will take you to a site which frames the problems with big bang theory very well. Interestingly, the site is actually a pro-creationist site, yet the author who wrote the article is clearly not a big bang believer, even though the big bang theory was first postulated by a roman catholic priest.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1453

Cheers