rewebster

You are stating behavior of magnets that is contrary to how they are observed to actually behave. errrr---What behaviors?

Since this is only a thought experiment (on my part anyway): a row of circular magnets First, It would depend on the orientation of the 'circular' magnets--whether horizontal to the 'ground' plane or vertical. All circular (disc) magnets that I've seen so far are made with the poles on the flats. I would be interesting to see ones made where the poles are orientated across the diameter of the cylinder. a torsion wire A torsion wire would 'flex' , so, it would have a different reaction to a setup where there would be a rigid axil through the magnet. no magnet turns more than 180 degs Magnets aren't singularity points---They have dimensions. As one turns, it's 'end edge corner' actually becomes closer to the second; so, the field effect changes--not as a pure 'sin' wave function, I don't believe, but one has to consider the dimensions of the magnet and the closer distance that that magnet is AND the altered effect of the field in the process. Past 180 Do you mean, past 90? ---Even then, magnetic fields (the reactions) seem to be not exactly orientated to angles.--To 180's and 90's maybe, but from just me playing with the ones I have, it depends on the shape. From what I gather concerning sophisticated setups, it is this process of snapping and re-joining that exhibits interesting and non-intuitive effects. Am I on the right track? 'Setups' seems to be the key word----they all seem to be a little different, and precision in the setup also seems to be the other key. A is coupled to B is coupled to C, and so on down the line. But these magnets aren't touching The turning does not happen sequentially; B does not wait until you are done turning A before it feels a torque and starts to rotate. And so on down the line. I think they would. Just because magnetism propagates at light speed, doesn't mean that the magnets will react at light speed. Air resistance, resistance in the pivot points (and/or bearings) will slow the secondary's magnet's reaction. (And I believe these things are just part of the reason why the reaction isn't instantaneous.) And because the magnets are separated, the field strength from the first, let's say, isn't as strong in effect to the fourth, as it would be to the second's field. I don't think it's an inverse square field in close range---it may be out farther, though. That may be one of the reasons why some of these machines seem to work. You are starting with a flawed premise. hmmmm? What premise are you working from to think that I have a flawed premise? if you think about it, there is no dead point at 90 degrees, the magnets are attracting N-S and S-N, the magnets actually move most easily through this point. The 90 degree point is stronger, it seems, (on a bar magnet) due to its end corner being in closer proximity (to the second magnet) from rotating around the center point's axial mechanism.

But they are all coupled, and you are supplying the energy to turn all of them. If I get your thinking of the word, 'coupled'--- by the attractive force, right? Everything else being equal, it doesn't matter which one you turn. Well, if you turn the 'end' one, it is only 'coupled' to only the second one. If you turn the fourth in a series, say of 16, then the fourth is, by your definition, 'double coupled' ---coupled once in the third-fourth 'couple' and again by the fourth-fifth 'couple'. The field strength will extend, depending on variables, (and from post 21), to some extent through and around the series, but the first, still (logically), should still have less field strength associated with it. ------------------------------------------------ here's something interesting and as it relates to the 'jerkiness' and should be considered a viable source. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor Even after it exists, they still want to criticize it and not see it's importance: 1) low total power involved, we do not know whether it would scale to useful size 2) possible confounding of input/output currents 3) nothing close to commercial application available as yet. under 'NEC Rating' near the bottom ------------------------------------------------------- I can understand the reluctance for anything like this, or even close to this, to be looked at, thought about, or possibly accepted by any professionally trained physicist for the simple reason that it may be a crack in the pot:rolleyes: that holds the fluid of knowledge that their (and our;) ) world of reality is based.---

Most academias are good people. They are usually busy either with their own projects or with their teaching/writing/experiments. Some will listen, others will not. I've met some really egotistic physicists, and some really nice ones. Grouping together all academias and calling them self-serving, egotistic gatekeepers is as bad as calling all non-academia independent researchers 'crackpots'. I think it comes down to respect. On some other boards, I've seen younger people interested in a subject, ask a question, and being treated with respect. When someone else asks a similar question, with a little more knowledge (writing skills and 'apparent' age), I've seen those people being replied to in a harsh, sarcastic and demeaning way. ---Like, 'you're old enough to know better, so I'm going to treat you that way'. If I remember right, Einstein wasn't taken too seriously until about 10 years after his 1905 paper. I would bet that in that 10 years, there were more than a fair share of snide remarks about Einstein and his 'crackpot' ideas. Most academias have written papers, and in the longer scheme of things (delta 't'), their names will be forgotten---and they know it. How many other 'theories' were going on at the same time as Einstein's that are now forgotten? How many and what are the chances that some non-academia has something important to say?----Slim, but that means there's still a chance. Status against non-status, knowledge against creativity, over-confidence in dogma against over-zealousness in presentation--academias may look at it as right (them) against wrong (the newbie). A new idea is just that--an idea, until it is proved right or wrong. The celestial terra based system worked fine for most (except for those annoying 'wanderers' to explain). I've have heard many physicists say or imply to say, 'if the math works to what is seen, then, OK'. Does that mean the theory behind the math is right?--no, it just means that the math OF the theory seems to work. Expounding what is presently accepted and presently worked on by many is what academias almost HAVE to do be accepted and not be rejected by their peers. That is one thing that the non-academias don't have to worry about as much--until they want to present it to someone---and where do they go?---well, to the academias, of course. Then, the cycle starts. Some people may deserve being called 'crackpots'--some don't. Some academias just like calling anyone a crackpot who is not a academia that is trying something that may, or may not, be anything additive to to greater scheme of things, just because they can and get away with it. Sometimes power corrupts. Knowledge does help weed out the real bad; but, when most of the basic foundational fundamentals of physics (gravity, light, magnetism, etc.) aren't still fully understood,--- who really knows?----

edit: (rewebster, try not to double post. edit instead.) OK:-) Turning the magnets just a percentage probably would only turn the next less than that percentage; but, turning them the full 180 should turn the one next to it 180, also. Again, I haven't done any lab work on this, but, as a guess, one would get a lot less work done out of the second magnet than what it would take to turn the first (breaking/overcoming the attractive force). The increase/positive gain in work (from turning the first) seems that it wouldn't happen until down the chain some. Maybe that's why some of the ones, like the Kohei Minato device, use a few (16 for his) magnets in his circular set up. They might spin if each magnet has gained enough inertia to carry it past the "dead" point., but the spin would be terribly jerky, no? I wouldn't think any more jerky than a standard electric motor, if the magnets were positioned right and the speed of the turning was sufficient.-Would part of that jerkiness (?) be caused from the corners of a square/rectangular magnet? In the Kohei Minato device, he set his magnets up at what looks to be a 45 degree angle to the tangential. I think that there is definitely some significance in that.

Now consider restricting a magnet. By exerting enough turning force on a distant moveable one, the force exerted on the fixed one can be no greater than that required to break the link. I just saw this---can you paraphrase this? Do you mean, rotating a movable magnet in relation to a 'fixed' immovable one?

I wonder if a shaped magnet may make any difference. Some of the so-called 'crackpot' experiments on the web use electro-magnets, either as part or to start their devices, if I recall right, which are using some 'outside' energy---if they did work after they were detached, would these be considered OU? I haven't read if they have to to be designated OU or not----I don't know about the exact definition. (If the power is still more than the input) I haven't read anything that explains the duality of the attractive force and repulsive force, so far though. If you have some links to explain the mechanism that causes it, I would like to read them. Has anyone found anything yet?

Now unless there is a difference in principle between a line of common axis ring magnets and a line of individually mounted bar magnets, then the effect should be the same surely, and easier to visualise? I like to visualise bar magnets---for my 'thought' experiment. yes--I think friction would come into play sooner or later. I'm sure someone out there has done more along this line than what I've found on the net. Equations about magnets, and thought experiments don't come close to lab or testing though.

Why is that logical? why does it not seem logical, to you? Being in an attracted state on just one end would seem to take less force to move.

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 If the magnets were far enough apart, they wouldn't rotate when the first was turned. If there were two fairly close, turning one would take more effort than turning one by itself. The question then becomes, at what distance apart and with what amount of force would it take to turn the first and have all the others rotate. The fields of the second, third, etc. will effect the first, but to what point? Turning the first, logically, shouldn't take as much effort as turning one of the middle magnets, but either turning the first or one of the middle magnets will result in the same effect--all will rotate 180. Then, the next question would be, is there more force created in the turning of the other magnets than it took to turn the one?

I read someplace that Seurat was influenced to paint like this after he examined a print of a painting and noticed all the 'dots' that made up the print.

Hard won lesson: Theory and thought experiments are often easy, devising a practical test and putting it into practice is something else again. True ---and funny if you wonder if Einstein thought this too.

I think you woefully underestimate what is known about magnetism. I wasn't saying that, and there IS a lot known about it. I haven't read anything that explains the duality of the attractive force and repulsive force, so far though. If you have some links to explain the mechanism that causes it, I would like to read them. Maybe, I missed them. I liked the ideas of the 'mystery' of why magnetism and the other energies weren't fully explained. Physics is a passion of mine---not my occupation. Have you studied relativity? (or any physics, for that matter) For example, I don't plan much time to read and get a great understanding of String Theory, because it really doesn't interest me. I do read a lot though. One physicist told me that trying to understand the fundamental mechanisms of what causes the energies, such as magnetism, wasn't worth his time. He liked the string theory.

It may be that most think that all is known about magnetism and that it has been fully experimented full to all of its capacities. Physicists think they know what helps to cause magnetism (the un-paired electron), but explaining magnetism is still one of the fundamental unknowns. No one really knows what causes the duality (push and pull) and no one really knows what the field is that causes the push and pull. I find magnetism as interesting as all of the other unexplained energies.

I've seen one working on Scientific Frontiers with Alan Alda. It was, if I remember, at the Smithsonian. I have never seen one working personally--I haven't seen a lot of things working, like the accelerator at Fermilab either. From what I've read most have a very minimal output--a couple watts at most--not much ability to do much; and I think that may be the reason they may not be widely known or cared about---they seem like a low end physics parlor trick--they are out there though and I think we'll see more of them. They shouldn't be lumped with most 'perpetual motion' machines that one generally thinks of (ball on the end of a string on a wheel). Someone will show someday what magnetism is (the mechanism that causes the duality and the field effects), and these machines will no longer be considered a 'trick' .

There are quite a few pages out there on this: http://www.rexresearch.com/minato/minato.htm http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-text.html http://www.google.com/search?q=magnetic+motor+patent&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N Not all of the googles will be specifically about this though.

There are several patents on motors that utilize this idea: http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1727 http://pesn.com/2005/03/27/6900072_HowardJohnson_MagneticPropulsionPatents/

I don't think this will be understood, until magnetism is. It's similar to asking why a magnet can 'levitate' above another one.

That seems higher up on the 'new' theory level--- I would think that fundamental or foundational theoretic ideas would be more basic to a new theory. What would a new fundamental theory need to address? double slit? dual properties of magnetism? explanation of the wave/particle problem? the strong force? To me, these are four---what else would have to be explained?

Whether or not any of the theories are completely right or not, it seems, a lot of people still want to build a better mousetrap. Still, a theory that works to solve most problems is better than one that doesn't. To me, it seems that the knowledge that 'something isn't right' about the why and what of how things work has got quite a few more working on the problem ( and even the "non-professionals" ). I like reading other theories. They're interesting even up to the point where I say, 'whoa---THAT doesn't make sense!' I like your ideology on this. One facet I see is that the ST has grown with so many add-ons over the years, some of those add-ons being accepted more than others, that even when someone comes up with an idea, it is more than likely that one or more facets of their 'new' theory is confronted by one of the add-ons (like explanations for the red shift and, even the sub-sets of shifts) e.g. Most new theories/hypotheses seems overly generalized to have any seriousness given to them. Everyone has a theory of their own, don't they?--(you can use 'you'--I'll take it personally:rolleyes: )

I've read this thread three times now, and find it very interesting in the presentation of some of the basic questions that people present when thinking about 'new' theories and hypotheses. Severian--you seem to be more open minded than most as to the importance of new ideas and the measure which they must reach before even being considered as plausible.-- -For a start, was there something that inspired you to start this thread?