EXCITING NEW TECH: Programmable Magnets

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


They state they can program the magnets, if they can do this in real time using a computer connected to the magnets they could control the speed or direction of the magnetic device (perpetual motion machine)in your link you provided.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by toddtenexpa]

S&F
This is a great concept, I can't believe how simple the idea is. The video posted in your link was very informative. Where do I get one of those sheets of paper with iron filings in it?

reply to post by Nematode


Where do I get one of those sheets of paper with iron filings in it?

Could you not make your own. In College we used a sheet of paper with steel files spread on the top. But I was thinking if you took a ziplock sandwich bag and filled it withiron filings it would work the same. Maybe put a piece of wax paper on one side to let the filings slide freely.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by toddtenexpa]

Originally posted by LordBucket

I always thought free energy, if it ever
happened it would be done with magnets.

Gravity isn't directional, but magnetism is. So it seems like rotation is the way to get the "on/off" effect.

Gravity is most certainly directional and can be described by a vector to the center of mass of the attracting mass.

One difference is that of induction. Moving something through the gravitational field does nothing. Moving a ferrous object through a magnetic field induces a current

reply to post by VonDoomen


This is one of those things that once you see it you tell yourself "How didn't I think of that!"

This is not going to be one of those "takes a lot of effort to mass produce" like a lot of science advancements we see on the news. This is real, now and it will probably be in products very soon.

These guys really came up with something brilliant that does not require anything exotic to work.

There have been exotic magnet arrangements done before. Recently I was examining the magnet in a turntable motor and the magnetization was customized in a peculiar way, somefield lines were radial and some were at right angles, with something like 6 or 8 alternating zones around the entire circle of the magnet.

But magnets like that are not so much "programmed" but magnetized by a custom made jig of some sort. These guys are actually doing something more akin to CNC milling, but with a movable "magnetizer" instead of a cutting tool. The possibilities are endless.

-rrr

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by LordBucket

I always thought free energy, if it ever
happened it would be done with magnets.

Gravity isn't directional, but magnetism is. So it seems like rotation is the way to get the "on/off" effect.

Gravity is most certainly directional and can be described by a vector to the center of mass of the attracting mass.

One difference is that of induction. Moving something through the gravitational field does nothing. Moving a ferrous object through a magnetic field induces a current

Actually, moving masses near each other's proximity (and thus gravitational field) results in frame dragging effects, which are weak for everyday masses, but not totally negligible for things like satellites, etc. I am not sure if this is a good analog to inductance, but it is at least some kind of analog of it.

-rrr

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by VonDoomen

 

Content from external source
Two handheld smart magnets mounted on handles clasp
together tightly, but when they are twisted they come apart.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't this very easily become a "free" energy device?

Imagine two cylinders. Now apply magnetic poles to them in such an orientation that in one position they attract, but when rotated to a certain position they repel.

For that matter...no complex pole arrangement should be needed. Even with exactly what's described in the article, you could simply push the cylinders apart and then rotate them back into the attract position.




[edit on 25-11-2009 by LordBucket]

I am resisting my urge to dismiss the idea entirely and instead I will ask, how exactly do they attract? do they attract so they pull to one another or so they rotate in equal directions? are the cylinders mounted on shafts so that they can only rotate? or are they just floating freely?

I imagine that you would want them on shafts and that you would want them to rotate spontaneously for free energy. I am not sure how they will make it past 360 degrees.

-rrr

reply to post by toddtenexpa


Look up "Magnetic Field Viewing Film" on any search engine or shopping site like amazon. You might want to email Bob Lazar at unitednuclear.com, he probably sells stuff like that

-rrr

Could lead to advanced anti-gravity technology...

The process of fabricating this is interesting also... Opens the possibilities of an Advanced Alien race that has already mastered complex magnetic technologies. If you think about advancements we forsee then apply the possiblility of some other race out there somewhere being ahead of us, it opens some interesting ideas.

reply to post by Brainiac


well that goes with any technology. Once a civilization has experienced a technological singularity, the possibilities seem almost endless.
The idea behind this is
-If humans can design a computer smarter than us, then technically that computer will be able to design computers better than itself. This in turn becomes a runaway process, and that civilization advances to the next level so to speak.

It seems there's prior art on this. The Dynaflow fish tank filters incorporated a couple of toroidal multipole magnets on the motor shaft and impeller to drive the impeller through the plastic housing without using any mechanical seals.

reply to post by 4nsicphd

Gravity is most certainly directional and can be described by a
vector to the center of mass of the attracting mass.

I'm not sure what you thought I meant to which this would be your reply...but to clarify my meaning, if you have two spheres of mass, at any given distance the gravitational pull between them will be identical regardless of their orientation to one another. Similarly, rotating either object around its center of mass will also have no effect. The vector may be different if one object is to the left of the other as opposed to above it, but the acceleration in terms of speed, not in terms of velocity, will be identical.

Magnetic fields, on the other hand, are very sensitive to orientation.

Now what did you think I meant?

They will have to show more than that. So far, all I see is pieces of metal with small magnets installed. What part of this is "Programmed"?
"Presorted", is what they showed us. Maybe I missed something.

reply to post by j2000


Hummmmmm I smell a rat here. It is a well known fact in ufology that the American' have been given ET technology for many years now, just ask Mr Corso if he was still alive.

So, did this small company come up with the idea, OR was it handed to them on a plate from you know who????

Come on now, this is a conspiracy site isn't it.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by downunderET]

If they can create a frictionless gear system that will indeed be a great advancement in regards to efficiency of fuel consumption.
However, it will not be a perpetual motion machine as you still have to introduce friction to harness the motion.

The wind turbine for instance. If you have frictionless movement of your blades, the only thing that could end the motion of the machine is the coil that you MUST contact in order to store the energy with.

More efficent, yes. Perpetual motion, no.

But good lord would it be efficient indeed!

My son has a toy set. It is a series or magnets, some spheres and some "poles"... You can use them to build things. Anyhow, I was playing around with them a while back and I created a cube out of the spheres and poles, then hung that cube from a sphere that I held in my hand. When you spin the cube with its only contact being to another magnet, the thing will spin for longer than you want to hold the thing in your hand. Without ever seeming to slow.
However, If I tried to attach to rubber bands to the apparatus to harness energy, it would slow rather quickly as it spun them upon one another. Creating the friction, and the transference of energy you are trying to harness.

reply to post by VonDoomen


Sounds cool BUT i think i have a better magnet experiment
that we all could do.
I got the idea here from Boyd Bushman.

Google Video Link

You can buy the Supermagnets at United Nuclear.com.
- Neodymium Magnets -
It looks like 2 #31 magnets and 1 #32 magnet.
Drill a hole through the #31s. Bolt together with a brass bolt.

Originally posted by j2000
They will have to show more than that. So far, all I see is pieces of metal with small magnets installed. What part of this is "Programmed"?
"Presorted", is what they showed us. Maybe I missed something.

There have been magnetic gears around:


What makes this different, is it looks like you take a powdered metal and make a custom disk. Then you use a device to magnetize portions of the disk with the magnetism you want. You don't literally plant little magnets, but create them in the metal in the way you want them. Think of it as a dot matrix printer for magnets.

You may lose friction on wear and tear of gear parts but you lose something breaking the magnetic attractions. I would suppose impellers in pipes could be run this way without joints that could leak.

reply to post by rickyrrr

I am resisting my urge to dismiss the idea entirely

I notice you're replying to my first post. I'll answer your questions, but after some additional thought I'm less certain the idea would work for reasons described in this followup post. Please forgive my intial enthusiasm if this proves less than useful. I prefer to keep my mind open to testing new possibilities rather than simply accept truths and "laws" simply because somebody else said so.

are the cylinders mounted on shafts so that they
can only rotate?

There are many ways it could be built, but here's one possibillity:

Generally speaking, the cylinders need to be able to move towards and away from each other. This is, after all, a piston. Imagine two cylinders with their flat edges facing each other. Both cylinders are speared through their center by guiding rods running through them. One is allowed free motion back and forth along the cylinder, the other is allowed to rotate.

Posistion 1: Magnets attracting

0===00===0
| |
+-------+

Posistion 2: Magnets repelling:

0===0--0===0
| |
+-------+

Note that the guiding rods are not one solid piece all the way through. One cylinder must be able to rotate, while the other must be mounted so that left-right motion is unrestricted, but it cannot rotate. In the above, the cylinder of the left rotates, the cylinder on the right moves back and forth. Since the one on the left only needs to rotate, it can be mounted exclusively by the guiding rod. Since the one on the right doesn't need to rotate, you can cut a length along its underside and attach it to the frame on something that allows it to slide.

However, the particulars of the physical construction aren't really important. Again, it could be built in any of several ways. For example, you'd probably want to rotate the entire thing 90 degrees to reduce friction from the guiding rods. The important question to answer is whether overcoming the repulsion necessary to rotate the cylinder costs more energy than the piston can generate. Which, the more I think about it, the more I think it would.

how exactly do they attract?

Imagine the "coins" in the video as being a "slice" of the above cylinders. Looking directly on to the flat edge of a cylinder, alternate magnetic poles every 15 degrees or so. In position 1, the cylinders are rotated such that every south is next to a north in the other cylinder. In position 2, the cylinders are rotated such that matching poles are in line.

When you rotate one cylinder, the two cylinders will alternately attract and repell one another.

I am not sure how they will make it past 360 degrees.

Same way the wheels on your car do?

free energy

If energy cost of rotating one cylinder is less than what you can generate from the back and forth motion of the other cylinder, you have a free energy machine. If it isn't, you have a linear actuator.

Free energy? This will all be squashed by Monday never to be heard from again.

reply to post by randyvs

Free energy? This will all be squashed by Monday
never to be heard from again.

I know that some people take great pleasure in saying so...in kind of a "ha ha! I know something so I'm so smart! Yay for me!" kind of way.

But this obsession with the idea that "free energy can't work" is missing the point completely. In a practical sense, nobody really cares if energy is conserved. If I light a match and drop it on my carpet, the input energy of the match is much less than the resultant heat energy of my house burning down. Sure, the "sum total energy in the system" may remain constant, but the amount of effort I personally have to go to to light and drop a match is what I'm really interested in.

A wind turbine or a waterwheel aren't technically sources of "free energy" either, but that doesn't change the fact that once they're set up, you personally don't have to provide any additional input to get energy out of them.

Math and engineering have different objectives.