Re: [Vo]:Non polar magnetic repulsion

[Jones Beene]

This is amazing news. I know several people who have seen Yildiz motor 
run for short periods, but not for days at a time. He was always 
readjusting things.


If he is truly in production, the he must have solved some of the 
control issues so that it can run for days instead of hours. I suspect 
that it needs constant readjustment - which may not be a problem for 
some situations but would limit the market.


I hope you are on the waiting list - since if nothing else, one could 
imagine a computerized control system to do the readjustments.



H Ucar wrote:
 More than year ago I was on a big invention exhibition at istanbul 
where I meet M. Yildiz and watched his motor running for two hours. 
There is no doubt about it. In their recent announcement they said 
they are in production and they would not accepts new orders until 
2018, July. A problem with such a high power motor is fixing the 
magnets (not the demagnetization). Due to impulsive forces magnet can 
melt plastic housings, Al is better but even a numbers of fixing 
screws may not suffice for long periods.




Jones Beene wrote:


 H Ucar wrote:

Here is the video of the experiment
https://youtu.be/ZofshixkMg4 , which I first observed the
non-polar repulsion and gave the sign of possibility of
levtation / bound state.


It is no wonder from watching phenomena like this, that the idea
of a self-powering magnetic motor is one which will probably never
die. Many have come close and are still trying - but the issue of
demagnetization is always there.

Here is another effort that is very alluring and advanced in its
implementation, but alas, may not be the answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWggsnpEk_s=1

Re: [Vo]:Non polar magnetic repulsion

[H Ucar]

On the other videos I recall, angular phase of the magnets are fixed to the
axial displacement through the gearbox.

It is too bad that inventors locks them selves into patents and monetary
deals. More than year ago I was on a big invention exhibition at istanbul
where I meet M. Yildiz and watched his motor running for two hours. There
is no doubt about it. In their recent announcement they said they are in
production and they would not accepts new orders until 2018, July. A
problem with such a high power motor is fixing the magnets (not the
demagnetization). Due to impulsive forces magnet can melt plastic housings,
Al is better but even a numbers of fixing screws may not suffice for long
periods.



On Mar 10, 2017 20:24, "Jones Beene"  wrote:


 H Ucar wrote:

> Here is the video of the experiment https://youtu.be/ZofshixkMg4 , which
> I first observed the non-polar repulsion and gave the sign of possibility
> of levtation / bound state.
>

It is no wonder from watching phenomena like this, that the idea of a
self-powering magnetic motor is one which will probably never die. Many
have come close and are still trying - but the issue of demagnetization is
always there.

Here is another effort that is very alluring and advanced in its
implementation, but alas, may not be the answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWggsnpEk_s=1

Re: [Vo]:Non polar magnetic repulsion

[Jones Beene]

 H Ucar wrote:
Here is the video of the experiment https://youtu.be/ZofshixkMg4 , 
which I first observed the non-polar repulsion and gave the sign of 
possibility of levtation / bound state.


It is no wonder from watching phenomena like this, that the idea of a 
self-powering magnetic motor is one which will probably never die. Many 
have come close and are still trying - but the issue of demagnetization 
is always there.


Here is another effort that is very alluring and advanced in its 
implementation, but alas, may not be the answer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWggsnpEk_s=1

Re: [Vo]:Non polar magnetic repulsion

[ROGER ANDERTON]

"classical physics" covers a lot of things
classical physics    
Physics that does not make use of quantum mechanics or the theory of 
relativity. Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, and Maxwell's theory of 
electromagnetism are all examples of classical physics. Many theories in 
classical physics break down when applied to extremely small objects such as 
atoms or to objects moving near the speed of light. 
the definition of classical physics
 
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
the definition of classical physics
 Classical physics definition at Dictionary.com, a free online dictionary with 
pronunciation, synonyms and transl...  |   |

  |

  |

 
Boscovich atomic theory
In his atomic theory, Boscovich blended Newton’s 1718 atomic theory, i.e. 
viewing the world as being composed a elementary particles that attract at 
close distances via the force of chemical affinity, and Gottfried Leibniz’s 
view of atomic particles as ‘points of energy’, to conceive a newer theory of 
‘point atoms’ or ‘stationary atom theory’ in which atoms were regarded as 
centers of forces without spatial extent, and whereas Newton focused on 
attraction, Boscovich added to this the importance of repulsive forces, such 
that at short range, atoms attracted each other, but that at longer range, 
atoms pushed each other way, the latter aspect explaining gas pressure. [1] In 
this model, the rigid surface of the Democritus atom model was replaced by a 
region of equilibrium between the forces of attraction and repulsion associated 
with the dynamic field surrounding the atom collapsed into a material point. 
[4]http://www.eoht.info/page/Roger+Boscovich
 

On Thursday, 9 March 2017, 16:15, H Ucar  wrote:
 

 Demonstrated non-polar repulsion can be perfectly explained by classical 
physics. I don't see any arguments here to involve explicitely Boscovich's 
theory. BTW, a nice article dated 1957, "Boscovich and Particle Theory" written 
by L. L. WHYTE can be read from
http://www.nature.com.sci-hub.bz/nature/journal/v179/n4554/abs/179284a0.html



On Mar 9, 2017 16:33, "ROGER ANDERTON"  wrote:

 
 >>If we understand the mechanism of the repulsion between particles...
again with things that are consequences of Boscovich's theory published 1758. 
The doctrine of atomism led to Boscovich's point-particles, where since there 
was no contact between particles everything had to be explained by fields of 
attractive and repulsive forces. Basis of modern atomic physics and unified 
field theory.
talks on unified field theory at: http://unifiedfieldtheory.co. uk/




On Thursday, 9 March 2017, 10:50, H Ucar  wrote:
 

 If we understand the mechanism of the repulsion between particles may we can 
find smarter way to overcome. About two years ago I observed a rotating magnet, 
dipole revolving on the rotation plane repels another dipole magnet regardless 
its orientation. Despite being a simple phenomenon, it doesn't take place in 
textbooks, even in the literature, at least in a way that I can understand. 
Bound states that I obtained between magnets are based on this effect. On the 
other hand the mechanical version of the stability case (is known as Inverted 
Pendulum and is based to Mathieu/Hill's equation. In 1974,  van der Heide 
discovered a magnetic counterpart of the inverted pendulum "Stabilization by 
oscillation", Philips tech. Rev. 34, 61-72, 1974, No. 2/3, although the 
demonstation involves quadrupolar magnet and can not be interpreted as bound 
state (article do not mentions too). Here is the video of the experiment 
https://youtu.be/ZofshixkMg4 , which I first observed the non-polar repulsion 
and gave the sign of possibility of levtation / bound state.
As the bound state obtained this way is mainly kinetic (rather than static), 
there are many way to disturb it, resulting in breaking it apart or collapse. 
Interestingly, kinetic energy of the system can be higher than the total 
kinetic energy of the unbounded components, a case expressed as positive 
binding energy. This condition arose when a resonance build up in some parts, 
and mostly destroy the stability but they are cases the bound state kept alive.
In, now the abandoned idea of neutron as composite of p and e, its mass exceeds 
the total of p and e, suggests positive binding energy. May the 
instability/beta decay can be explained this way. Barut had theoreticized 
nuclear forces by magnetic/electromagnetic interactions, bound state of 
permanent magnets may fit in this if presence of rotational/oscillatory 
magnetic fields can be proved within nucleons. 
Looking to elastic p - e- and p - e+ scatterings, they are similar (by a brief 
examination), which can be expected if the interaction is in magnetic nature. 
From point of view of my scattering experiment, polarization of protons may 
have importance rather than electron (positron) polarization. It would be 
interesting to 

Re: [Vo]:Non polar magnetic repulsion

[H Ucar]

Demonstrated non-polar repulsion can be perfectly explained by classical
physics. I don't see any arguments here to involve explicitely Boscovich's
theory. BTW, a nice article dated 1957, "Boscovich and Particle Theory"
written by L. L. WHYTE can be read from

http://www.nature.com.sci-hub.bz/nature/journal/v179/n4554/abs/179284a0.html




On Mar 9, 2017 16:33, "ROGER ANDERTON"  wrote:


>>If we understand the mechanism of the repulsion between particles...

again with things that are consequences of Boscovich's theory published
1758. The doctrine of atomism led to Boscovich's point-particles, where
since there was no contact between particles everything had to be explained
by fields of attractive and repulsive forces. Basis of modern atomic
physics and unified field theory.

talks on unified field theory at: http://unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/





On Thursday, 9 March 2017, 10:50, H Ucar  wrote:


If we understand the mechanism of the repulsion between particles may we
can find smarter way to overcome. About two years ago I observed a rotating
magnet, dipole revolving on the rotation plane repels another dipole magnet
regardless its orientation. Despite being a simple phenomenon, it doesn't
take place in textbooks, even in the literature, at least in a way that I
can understand. Bound states that I obtained between magnets are based on
this effect. On the other hand the mechanical version of the stability case
(is known as Inverted Pendulum and is based to Mathieu/Hill's equation. In
1974,  van der Heide discovered a magnetic counterpart of the inverted
pendulum "Stabilization by oscillation", Philips tech. Rev. 34, 61-72,
1974, No. 2/3, although the demonstation involves quadrupolar magnet and
can not be interpreted as bound state (article do not mentions too). Here
is the video of the experiment https://youtu.be/ZofshixkMg4 , which I first
observed the non-polar repulsion and gave the sign of possibility of
levtation / bound state.

As the bound state obtained this way is mainly kinetic (rather than
static), there are many way to disturb it, resulting in breaking it apart
or collapse. Interestingly, kinetic energy of the system can be higher than
the total kinetic energy of the unbounded components, a case expressed as
positive binding energy. This condition arose when a resonance build up in
some parts, and mostly destroy the stability but they are cases the bound
state kept alive.

In, now the abandoned idea of neutron as composite of p and e, its mass
exceeds the total of p and e, suggests positive binding energy. May the
instability/beta decay can be explained this way. Barut had theoreticized
nuclear forces by magnetic/electromagnetic interactions, bound state of
permanent magnets may fit in this if presence of rotational/oscillatory
magnetic fields can be proved within nucleons.

Looking to elastic p - e- and p - e+ scatterings, they are similar (by a
brief examination), which can be expected if the interaction is in magnetic
nature. From point of view of my scattering experiment, polarization of
protons may have importance rather than electron (positron) polarization.
It would be interesting to observe the difference of unpolarized and
polarized electrons in different energies of the electron beam on
scattering experiments. Enough speculations for now.

Re: [Vo]:Non polar magnetic repulsion

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 
 >>If we understand the mechanism of the repulsion between particles...
again with things that are consequences of Boscovich's theory published 1758. 
The doctrine of atomism led to Boscovich's point-particles, where since there 
was no contact between particles everything had to be explained by fields of 
attractive and repulsive forces. Basis of modern atomic physics and unified 
field theory.
talks on unified field theory at: http://unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/




On Thursday, 9 March 2017, 10:50, H Ucar  wrote:
 

 If we understand the mechanism of the repulsion between particles may we can 
find smarter way to overcome. About two years ago I observed a rotating magnet, 
dipole revolving on the rotation plane repels another dipole magnet regardless 
its orientation. Despite being a simple phenomenon, it doesn't take place in 
textbooks, even in the literature, at least in a way that I can understand. 
Bound states that I obtained between magnets are based on this effect. On the 
other hand the mechanical version of the stability case (is known as Inverted 
Pendulum and is based to Mathieu/Hill's equation. In 1974,  van der Heide 
discovered a magnetic counterpart of the inverted pendulum "Stabilization by 
oscillation", Philips tech. Rev. 34, 61-72, 1974, No. 2/3, although the 
demonstation involves quadrupolar magnet and can not be interpreted as bound 
state (article do not mentions too). Here is the video of the experiment 
https://youtu.be/ZofshixkMg4 , which I first observed the non-polar repulsion 
and gave the sign of possibility of levtation / bound state.
As the bound state obtained this way is mainly kinetic (rather than static), 
there are many way to disturb it, resulting in breaking it apart or collapse. 
Interestingly, kinetic energy of the system can be higher than the total 
kinetic energy of the unbounded components, a case expressed as positive 
binding energy. This condition arose when a resonance build up in some parts, 
and mostly destroy the stability but they are cases the bound state kept alive.
In, now the abandoned idea of neutron as composite of p and e, its mass exceeds 
the total of p and e, suggests positive binding energy. May the 
instability/beta decay can be explained this way. Barut had theoreticized 
nuclear forces by magnetic/electromagnetic interactions, bound state of 
permanent magnets may fit in this if presence of rotational/oscillatory 
magnetic fields can be proved within nucleons. 
Looking to elastic p - e- and p - e+ scatterings, they are similar (by a brief 
examination), which can be expected if the interaction is in magnetic nature. 
From point of view of my scattering experiment, polarization of protons may 
have importance rather than electron (positron) polarization. It would be 
interesting to observe the difference of unpolarized and polarized electrons in 
different energies of the electron beam on scattering experiments. Enough 
speculations for now.



   

[Vo]:Non polar magnetic repulsion

[H Ucar]

If we understand the mechanism of the repulsion between particles may we
can find smarter way to overcome. About two years ago I observed a rotating
magnet, dipole revolving on the rotation plane repels another dipole magnet
regardless its orientation. Despite being a simple phenomenon, it doesn't
take place in textbooks, even in the literature, at least in a way that I
can understand. Bound states that I obtained between magnets are based on
this effect. On the other hand the mechanical version of the stability case
(is known as Inverted Pendulum and is based to Mathieu/Hill's equation. In
1974,  van der Heide discovered a magnetic counterpart of the inverted
pendulum "Stabilization by oscillation", Philips tech. Rev. 34, 61-72,
1974, No. 2/3, although the demonstation involves quadrupolar magnet and
can not be interpreted as bound state (article do not mentions too). Here
is the video of the experiment https://youtu.be/ZofshixkMg4 , which I first
observed the non-polar repulsion and gave the sign of possibility of
levtation / bound state.

As the bound state obtained this way is mainly kinetic (rather than
static), there are many way to disturb it, resulting in breaking it apart
or collapse. Interestingly, kinetic energy of the system can be higher than
the total kinetic energy of the unbounded components, a case expressed as
positive binding energy. This condition arose when a resonance build up in
some parts, and mostly destroy the stability but they are cases the bound
state kept alive.

In, now the abandoned idea of neutron as composite of p and e, its mass
exceeds the total of p and e, suggests positive binding energy. May the
instability/beta decay can be explained this way. Barut had theoreticized
nuclear forces by magnetic/electromagnetic interactions, bound state of
permanent magnets may fit in this if presence of rotational/oscillatory
magnetic fields can be proved within nucleons.

Looking to elastic p - e- and p - e+ scatterings, they are similar (by a
brief examination), which can be expected if the interaction is in magnetic
nature. From point of view of my scattering experiment, polarization of
protons may have importance rather than electron (positron) polarization.
It would be interesting to observe the difference of unpolarized and
polarized electrons in different energies of the electron beam on
scattering experiments. Enough speculations for now.