At 08:22 am 18/05/2005 -0500, John wrote: > Not sure if it is significant or not but there is an attachment to this > patent at the end of the images that retracts claims 26, 27, and 28. No > reason is given. The retraction is not represented in the text only > version.... > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/net > ahtml/search-bool.html&r=22&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=4,151,431&OS=4,151,43 > 1&RS=4,151,431 > > The infamous Mr. Duggan was the examiner no less... isn't he the one > typically vilified for crapping all over anything that even hints of > perpetual motion? Additionally, this patent is the foundation of 21 others. > The latest issued in 2004. I have not read through them all yet, but it is > clear and plainly stated in the summary of the invention of the ones I have > that the goal is rotary motive power without an external power supply... > > Something is missing here. This is a significant body of work overall by > multiple individuals over an extended period of time. What has nothing ever > commercialized? > > john
That is the sixty four trillion dollar question. It could be for the reason I mentioned in the previous post, i.e. the energy is being drawn from the magnet in some way - restoring the equality between spin-up and spin-down perhaps. Or, it could be that there are scale effects so that when one tries to make a worthwhile machine the output doesn't justify the expense compared with solar, say. Or people are just fiddling about without any adequate underlying philosophy of what is happening. Which reminds me of 3 cakes I baked earlier ;-) on the Beta-atmosphere Yahoo group. =================================================== ------------------------------------------ I must go down to the seas again, To the lonely sea and the sky, And all I ask is a tall ship And a star to steer her by; And the wheel's kick and the wind's song And the white sail's shaking, And a gray mist on the sea's face, And a gray dawn breaking. I must go down to the seas again, For the call of the running tide Is a wild call and a clear call That may not be denied; And all I ask is a windy day With the white clouds flying, And the flung spray and the blown spume, And the sea-gulls crying. I must go down to the seas again, To the vagrant gypsy life, To the gull's way and the whale's way, Where the wind's like a whetted knife; And all I ask is a merry yarn >From a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream When the long trick's over. John Masefield ------------------------------------------- Let us suppose, as Keith suggests, that the SMOT works for two in a row. Then there seems no reason why it should not work for a line of SMOTs encircling the earth. And so it would be possible to have a steel ball circling the earth indefinitely at a speed where the input of energy from the spread out magnetic field balanced the losses due to friction and air resistance. In effect we have created an extended magnetic field by coupling together a lot of little fields. But we already have an extended magnetic field, haven't we? We have the earth's magnetic field. Now for simplicity, let us consider the earth's magnetic field in the region of the magnetic equator. The magnetic field acts parallel to the earth's surface and the dip angle is zero. At the magnetic equator a soft iron specimen will be equally attracted to the north and south magnetic poles. If we move a 100 miles north, however, then the attraction to the north pole will be greater than the attraction to the south pole and the specimen will experience a resultant force towards the north pole. Let us assume that our specimen is placed in a 1 mile long evacuated tube running north and south (a longitube <grin>) on a surface which has an extremely low coefficient of friction. The specimen will accelerate under the resultant force towards the north pole. The speed will increase to a point where the sliding resistance force is equal and opposite to the magnetic force. Now there is nothing mysterious about this. Clearly we are obtaining useful energy from the earth's magnetic field. Not very much it is true. But we are not concerned at this point with emasculating the oil sheiks but only with establishing a principle. If we extend our longitube northwards the attractive force increases (which is good) but it also starts dipping downwards (which is bad). At some point in the frozen north it points vertically downwards and our specimen must come to a halt. To take our specimen back along its route to where it started we would have to pay back all the energy gained on the northward journey. So over many complete cycles of back and forth journeys the system is conservative. But note this. If we are only interested in one journey the system is not conservative. So the notion that a magnetic field is conservative has to be qualified. The same argument applies, of course, to gravity. For a man throwing himself off the top of Beachy Head the gravitational wind is definitely not conservative. On a large scale life is conservative. We are born and we die. But on a small scale it definitely isn't. 8-) It would appear that by this ingenious arrangement of north poles facing each other at a slight angle the inventor has created a device which gives a specimen a magnetic kick. Presumably one can get the same out of a planet's gravitational field with the slingshot effect. Now the arrangement of the magnets at an angle to the gravitational field reminded me of something. For a long time I couldn't think what it was. Of course, it is true I have been rabbiting on about the fact that the electric field and the magnetic field couldn't possibly be a right angles because they wouldn't interact if they were, but here we are dealing with magnetic and gravitic fields which do not interact in the same way as E and M - or if they do, the news has never reached Harvaard ;-) Then I realised what I was looking at. I was seeing tacking. To anyone who understands only very elementary mechanics the fact that a sailboat can sail into the wind is rather mysterious. How on earth does it do that? Even when one analyses the forces, it is not simple. It's fairly easy to see how one can sail at an angle downwind - but into the wind??? - that's another ball game entirely. Tacking involves setting up an equilibrium between two winds. The obvious one is the wind on the sail - and the far from obvious one is the wind on the keel. Think of the keel as an underwater sail. But where is the underwater wind? If there is a current flowing then an underwater wind is fair enough - but a sailing boat can tack upwind when there are no currents relative to the sea bed. Ah! but the sailing boat makes its own underwater current/wind by its sideways motion through the water. The point is that the air and water are moving relative to each other. But the sailing boat exists both in the airspace and the water space. By altering its geometry appropriately, i.e. making an angle between the sail and the keel, the boat can sail upwind or upsea. The funny thing is that like the SMOT, sailing upwind must have been discovered well before anyone understood what was going on. Now the SMOT iron ball also encounters two winds. Its keel is in the gravitational field and experiences the gravitational wind - and its sail is in the magnetic wind and experiences a force from this wind which is at an angle to the gravitational wind. But one thing more is needed. The sail and the keel have to be at an angle to each other. If they are in line then the boat wont tack. There has to be this, what shall I call it, this hierarchical strain between them. But permanent ferromagnets do have this built in strain. And that is how they are able to tack up the gravitational wind. Its all very simple when you can see it. Of course, if you are so intellectually challenged as to believe in all that relativity rubbish (S and G) then the congnitive dissonance will be so great that you will never see it - and you will think that the forthcoming gravitational mills of the 21st century must be driven by hidden batteries. ;-) Cheers Frank Grimer ------------------------------------------ et factus est repente de caelo sonus tamquam advenientis spiritus vehementis et replevit totam domum ubi erant sedentes ------------------------------------------ =============================================== There seems to be a strangely prevalent idea that one cannot get continuous work out of a gravitational field because the field is "conservative" - "whatever that might mean" - to quote the Heir Apparent on love. This can easily be shown to be a wildly inaccurate belief. If we fire a space ship out into space and we wish to change its direction then we have to fire a rocket at right angles to the direction of travel. In an increment of time this will accelerate our rocket in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel. Now if a sideways gravitational wind is blowing then we will be able to save energy and wont need to fire our rocket. The wind will provide the sideways force. This is the principle of slingshot that space vehicle use to alter direction by entering and exiting a planet's gravitational field. If you think about it, if it wasn't for this gravitational energy being continuously supplied to us by the vertical gravitational wind, we would all fly-off at a Wellsian tangent 8-). It seems to me that the SMOT is effectively deflecting this wind in an analogous way that the sails of a windmill deflect the Alpha- atmosphere wind or the vanes in a Harrier jet engine deflects the flow of the gas jet coming from the engine in order to achieve lift. Why, the path of the SMOT ball even traces the outline of a series of turbine fan blades. Cheers Frank ---------------------------------- The Boy stood on the burning deck, Picking his nose like mad, He rolled it up in little balls, And flicked them at his dad. 8^) ---------------------------------- =================================================== Once our eyes are opened we can see that we already have gravitational windmills. Think of a horizontal turbine where the blades are turned by the falling rain. Now the immediate cause of the power extracted from the turbine is the rain drops. They are in effect the gravitational particles which are impacting the turbine blades, bouncing off at right angles say and driving the turbine around in a horizontal plane. In effect, the raindrops constitute quanta of a vertical wind in an analogous way to that of gas molecules constituting quanta of a horizontal wind. Before the discovery of universal gravitation the explanation for the source of power would have ended there - at the raindrops. It would be a kind of intermittent gravitation. If the vertical gravitation wind behaved in the same way as the vertical raindrop wind then on a fine summer morning we would get up and find we could float around on a gravitational windless day. Now a man living in a windy desert where rain never fell would be very puzzled by stories of this vertical wind and the turbines it drove. HW (Horizontal Wind) man could understand an atmospheric wind which blew on his traditional windmills. That came from the west and disappeared off to the east. But this vertical wind? Where did that disappear to? The VW (Vertical Wind) man with the raindrop wind doesn't know where his wind goes to since it is before there is any knowledge of the action of heat on water, evaporation and all that jazz. He presumes it sinks into the ground or if he lives by the sea-side the wind finishes up in the sea. But, frankly, VW man doesn't care what happens to it. He's not a scientist, he's an engineer and all he cares about is the fact his turbine generates electricity which keeps the lights on and the washing machine going. When VW isn't blowing VW man runs things on batteries just like HW man when HW isn't blowing. Now it seems to me that the SMOT ball is analogous to a raindrop being evapourated by the magnetic field. The precise mechanics don't matter to us any more than how the rain manages to get up into the clouds matters to VW man. If we can establish a cycle of just two drops then we have established a point of principle. We don't have to circle the ball around to its original starting point. It is quite sufficient that we establish without any doubt that we can get one SMOT feeding another to give us two drops. We can use the technique I learned in surveying to eliminate the possibility of two drops arising from below-threshold-of-perception difference in the 2 SMOTs by reversing both direction and order to give us. -> A -> B -> ; -> B -> A -> ; <- A <- B <- ; <- B <- A <- . If that can be demonstrated then as far as I am concerned one is home and dry. To insist that the ball is returned to its original starting point is both unreasonably demanding and unnecessary. The above experiment will show that it has been returned to its effective starting point and that is quite good enough. The existence of the Finsrud machine ...... http://www.keelynet.com/energy/finsrud.htm ....................................gives me optimism that the above experiment can be successfully carried out. Cheers Frank Grimer ---------------------------------------------------- The quality of mercy is not strained; It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed- It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes. William Shakespeare ---------------------------------------------------- =================================================== Wildly optimistic? Probably. But one may as well look on the bright side, eh! 8-) Cheers Frank Grimer
