Post by thread:[EE]: "no variance, no induced currents"

The spinning is around the magnet axis. Generated current is proportional to the magnetic field and distance between the axis and the extremity of conductive disk. To increase the voltage may be used many serial devices ( or isolated sections I've described ) See the site: http://depalma.pair.com/ cheers, Vasile On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Ed Browne, Precision Electronic Solutions wrote: {Quote hidden}> <Vasile wrote> > Twirl THE WHOLE ENSEMBLY with 1500...5000 rpm, so the magnetic field on > the copper surface WILL BE ALWAYS CONSTANT except a small interaction with > the earth's magnetic field. > > > Do you spin around the magnet's axis or holding a corner of the board? Is > there an explanation of the physics in the patents? > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList > spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

As you read, I never mention about the " 100% efficiency". Before become sceptical follow the links and get the patent ( there is a patent ! ) This ideea it's working, even with efficiency less than 100% with a principle who is breaking the subject mentioned here: there are induced currents without magnetic field variation. Make a try with the experiment I've point. You'll be surprised. Vasile On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Barry Gershenfeld wrote: {Quote hidden}> >See the site: > >http://depalma.pair.com/ > > > >cheers, Vasile > > > > Oh, a perpetual motion machine! Okay, now I see... > Coulda saved us the trouble... > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Barry Gershenfeld wrote: > > >See the site: > >http://depalma.pair.com/ > > > >cheers, Vasile > > > > Oh, a perpetual motion machine! Okay, now I see... > Coulda saved us the trouble... Umm, some "perpetual motion machines" are quite viable, and simply convert one form of energy into another. I've seen a few workable patents for devices that produce rotary motion using the rotation of the earth as the input energy, and even a solar cell attached to a battery and tiny motor qualifies for the "perpetual motion" tag. :o) -Roman -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

>even a solar cell attached to a battery and tiny >motor qualifies for the "perpetual motion" tag. >:o) >-Roman Huh. I have one like that and every night it stops. :-o I assume you are saying "runs continuously" when you say "perpetual motion". Which, you can argue, is correct; however when most of us hear the term we assume we are hearing that "over unity" thing. (Wherein the hairs on the backs of our necks stand up...) Barry P.S. I read the Lancaster article and now I see what's going on. Still, I would be careful to warn people away from that "free energy" stuff when making referrals to places like DePalma's. Barry -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

> I assume you are saying "runs continuously" when you say > "perpetual motion". Which, you can argue, is correct; > however when most of us hear the term we assume we are > hearing that "over unity" thing. (Wherein the hairs on > the backs of our necks stand up...) There is nothing in nature that DEMANDS the <= 100% that we are used to. The laws of thermodynamics are simply statements of (invariably) observed "fact" (up until recently). Some of the "facts" that people seem to be observing at stellar distances suggest processes that do not fit the laws as we know them. eg it APPEARS that there is "something" "out there" which has net gravitational repulsion - good enough to make the hairs on one's neck stand up all by themselves ;-). It was suggested a while ago (Fairbank & co) that some types of antimatter MAY have gravitational attraction not equal to what we would expect for its mass. While I did not hear further on this (and therefore suspect the idea may have died) the theory was an acceptable one that did not violate physical laws per se. You can, theoretically, using Einsteinian rules, build a time machine (entry level model is a wee bit big and heavy for our current technology as it requires solar system size masses and material strengths well beyond anything known) but it doesn't break the rules as we know them (as far as we know ;-) ). .All that said, every demonstration of >100% efficiency that I have ever heard of to date seems to be based on bad science or quackery. I do look forward to the day when we see someone releasing pieces of dark matter that accelerate happily skywards as they are repelled by the earth's gravity "field" :-). It appears that this would violate some and possibly all the laws of thermodynamics but it also seems that there is "something" already doing just that out between the stars. Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Hi Russell, Why would gravitational repulsion violate any laws (other than those that state that there is no negative gravitational mass)? It seems to me as though it would simply make gravity identical to the electrostatic force. It wouldn't be "free energy", but instead just another as yet untapped source of energy (i.e., discovering dark matter on earth would be like discovering oil: once you release the dark matter to fly upwards, you would get energy, but you would have to do work on it to bring it back down.) Sean At 03:02 PM 10/11/01 +1300, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>.All that said, every demonstration of >100% efficiency that I have ever >heard of to date seems to be based on bad science or quackery. >I do look forward to the day when we see someone releasing pieces of dark >matter that accelerate happily skywards as they are repelled by the earth's >gravity "field" :-). It appears that this would violate some and possibly >all the laws of thermodynamics but it also seems that there is "something" >already doing just that out between the stars. > > > Russell McMahon > >-- >http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics >(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Barry Gershenfeld wrote: > > >even a solar cell attached to a battery and tiny > >motor qualifies for the "perpetual motion" tag. > >:o) > >-Roman > > Huh. I have one like that and every night it stops. :-o Hence the "battery" needed in the device. ;o) > I assume you are saying "runs continuously" when you say > "perpetual motion". Which, you can argue, is correct; > however when most of us hear the term we assume we are > hearing that "over unity" thing. (Wherein the hairs on > the backs of our necks stand up...) It's really a matter of technology and how wonderful it appears, 60 years ago the solarcell+ battery+motor would have qualified absolutely for the title of perpetual motion machine. Now we just say, ho-hum, it's a motor that is powered by light energy. Anyone can do it. > P.S. I read the Lancaster article and now I see what's going > on. Still, I would be careful to warn people away from that > "free energy" stuff when making referrals to places like > DePalma's. > > Barry Yep there's a lot of very suspect physics on some of those web pages. I think "over unity" is a real disaster of a term. It doesn't help anyone, especially with the scientific community. A far better term would be "new energy source" or even "unknown energy source". Again the example of using a solar cell, this is a very new energy source. Actual photons producing electric current, by a simple chunk of silicon. Totally magical in concept just a few short years ago. Nobody would have seriously thought of using light itself as an energy source. What's next? Gravity turned into electric current by a chunk of silicon? The earths magnetic field and or rotation converted to electricity? No it's not "over unity" because that can't occur, and again it's just turning one energy type into another. Only a really arrogant scientist thinks that every possible energy source in the universe is known to them. But I too cringe at that "over unity" buzzword. -Roman -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.