--- David Dameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > It is accepted that gravity is a conservative field.
As it is also accepted that a magnetic field is conservative. BUT is that really the case 100% of the time or just what we have observed to date? Dave, will you agree to replace David Squires as an independent Prometheus Effect verifier? You will need to join the PE group. > Cyril pointed out that there are places on exit > where there would be no magnetic force. Cyril's force analysis was done on the forces along the ramp and not as the ball drops vertically. I think the slow motion frame by frame animated GIFs of a climb and drop that I have loaded onto the PE site (in the Videos section) tell the story better. > So an important factor is how much kinetic energy > does it take to get the ball to one, not that a > position exists. To make the Prometheus Effect work, IMO, almost ALL the KE must be given back to punch through the inner (dragback / declining flux) wall of the "Blue Hole" and exit vertically downward with little or no dragback of the PE gained during the ramp climb. From the frame by frame slow motion sequences it is clear the ball almost stops (gives up almost all the ramp gained KE) just before it slowly rotates on the exit point and drops verticaly downward with little or no horizontal KE. The ball does have some rotational KE due to the exit point rotation. > Are you saying that a slow magnetic gradient (on > entrance) followed by a larger gradient on exit, > over a shorter distance, can produce a > non-conservative magnetic field? If that is the case it is not clear. Maybe the acceleration of gravity alters? I don't have the equipment to tell but something very significant alters. > That would be very significant! I agree. I just wish I understood what I now know about the Prometheus Effect back in 1997 but that is another story for another day. Hi Dave, What is clear is the following: Establish 4 points: 1) Point A at the ramp entry. 2) Point B where the ball lands if it is allowed to roll backward from Point A and drop say 50mm to a level refernece plane. 3) Point C at the highest point of the ramp climb. 4) Point D where the ball lands if it is allowed to transit points A to C and drop to the same level reference plane as in point A. What I observe is: 1) Measure the final KE as the ball transits point A to B, without magnets (done to max KE by elimination of the magnetic dragback which does occur under the entry point. This same magnetic dragback at the entry assists the balls return). Record as KE1. 2) Measure the final KE as the ball transits points A to C to D. Record as KE2. 3) Measure the flux density at point A (with magnets present). Record as B1. 4) Measure the flux density at point D (with magnets present). Record as B2. 5) Observe KE2 is greater than KE1. (The ball has gained sufficient KE to do the return journey point D to point A against gravity) 6) Observe B1 is greater than B2. (The magnetic field will aid the balls return from point D to point A. Thus the measurements confirm OU capability and a very significant alteration in what conventional theory would predict. Verification of these measurements and observations, using this protocol and the measurement system I have developed, is what I seek from those independent verifiers who choose to do so. Comments most welcome. Now it's just engineering effort, time and money, Greg Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
