It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Generator idea

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   
You can spin magnets in every manner for the rest of your life but you will never achieve over unity.

Only one way I could see it as even being possible. You would have to identify the magnetic field as being a type of current. Then you could produce a magnet that also had the characteristics of a transistor. All internally. The field could flip at the slightest provocation.

Of course if this was achieved, you would have a self-oscillating magnet, and then the entire universe would collapse into itself for such a thing just can not exist.




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: Anomaly0101

originally posted by: Bloodworth
I always thought this is well. To use the motion and force of opposing magnets.


Makes sense doesn't it?

No, it's wrong a very fundamental level.

Where is the energy coming from?




One guy had a patent with overunity results by using shields to simulate a pulse with permanent magnets. Shields between the repelling/opposing magnets, so as they were spinning, they'd pass by the shield, temporarily blocking part of that magnet's field, then unblocking as it passed all the way across the shield, creating a pulse effect. Auto-pulse with permanent magnets.

These schemes are just attempting to trick nature, however all you trick is yourself.
Your thinking is antiquated and you don't understand energy very well. I don't care if you have a degree, you're just plain wrong and misunderstanding energy. Not my problem.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: standingwave
You can spin magnets in every manner for the rest of your life but you will never achieve over unity.

Only one way I could see it as even being possible. You would have to identify the magnetic field as being a type of current. Then you could produce a magnet that also had the characteristics of a transistor. All internally. The field could flip at the slightest provocation.

Of course if this was achieved, you would have a self-oscillating magnet, and then the entire universe would collapse into itself for such a thing just can not exist.
More rhetorical statements.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anomaly0101

originally posted by: standingwave
You can spin magnets in every manner for the rest of your life but you will never achieve over unity.

Only one way I could see it as even being possible. You would have to identify the magnetic field as being a type of current. Then you could produce a magnet that also had the characteristics of a transistor. All internally. The field could flip at the slightest provocation.

Of course if this was achieved, you would have a self-oscillating magnet, and then the entire universe would collapse into itself for such a thing just can not exist.
More rhetorical statements.


Well, you did invite comments in your opening post. Perhaps you only meant comments you agree with?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: standingwave

originally posted by: Anomaly0101

originally posted by: standingwave
You can spin magnets in every manner for the rest of your life but you will never achieve over unity.

Only one way I could see it as even being possible. You would have to identify the magnetic field as being a type of current. Then you could produce a magnet that also had the characteristics of a transistor. All internally. The field could flip at the slightest provocation.

Of course if this was achieved, you would have a self-oscillating magnet, and then the entire universe would collapse into itself for such a thing just can not exist.
More rhetorical statements.


Well, you did invite comments in your opening post. Perhaps you only meant comments you agree with?
Just stating my opinion of your opinions. I'm welcoming comments that I don't agree with, of course, but, it doesn't mean I shouldn't at least once in a while, state or indicate that I disagree with them too. I won't argue about it though. There is no point.

People act as if things are set in stone, when in reality a lot of theories turn out to be wrong or less correct than the physicists had assumed. Good example: "The researchers have discovered a powerful magnetic interaction between the photons dynamic magnetic field – and certain isolator materials atoms magnetic moment, that is 100 million times stronger than formerly anticipated. Under the proper circumstances, the photons magnetic fields effect is as strong as their electric field – as e.g. in solar cells.

The discovery is a surprise, because it is not straightforward to derive the strong magnetic effect from the physical equations, and thereby indicate that this quantum mechanical effect would be interesting enough. That is why the photomagnetic effect has been neglected for more than 100 years."

Although not entirely useful. It just shows that people are wrong oftentimes for sticking to the laws of thermodynamics and such as if they are correct under all circumstances. Often times people do not elaborate on how exactly they disagree with something beyond stating "it doesn't obey the laws of physics"

The energy is within the materials themselves. Converting a tiny amount of kinetic energy in the form of, for example, atomic vibrations, into angular momentum, spin energy. Super paramagnetic materials are more along the lines of what you're trying to get at but are not necessary. Anyway, people agreeing or disagreeing is interesting, but it won't make too much difference until I post the results. And I still haven't decided what the best material to house the prototype would be. If 3D printed quartz glass were easier to obtain I'd use that. Although I can produce molten quartz glass with an arc furnace.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Anomaly0101


Very true. Tesla was a genius among geniuses. The alcuiberre drive may be of interest to you the bending of 2d space time would be revolutionary and would jumpstart another industrial revolution.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Anomaly0101

You keep citing the photomagnetic effect like some kind of mantra. I don't think you understand its significance.

No physical laws had to be changed to explain it. So there was nothing wrong with physics. The original explanation simply neglected quantum mechanical effects.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Anomaly0101

You keep citing the photomagnetic effect like some kind of mantra. I don't think you understand its significance.

No physical laws had to be changed to explain it. So there was nothing wrong with physics. The original explanation simply neglected quantum mechanical effects.
There is always something wrong with physics. It's the fact that physicists created it, and they are inherently flawed as all humans are. So physics theory is not as static as you want to believe it is, it is dynamic, and should evolve accordingly; although it doesn't always get the chance to because people want it to be static. That's your inertia talking.

Anyhow, onto more important matters.


originally posted by: JordanBailey
a reply to: Anomaly0101


Very true. Tesla was a genius among geniuses. The alcuiberre drive may be of interest to you the bending of 2d space time would be revolutionary and would jumpstart another industrial revolution.
That does interest me actually. I have some ideas on how to go about doing that, but I think this is partially what Tesla and others had been after.

I decided finally what material to make the prototype out of. It shall be finished soon....




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join