[BEAKER]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Sweet; Beaker used hammers! Hey, speaking of hammers & magnets, what do you get when you break a magnet in 2? Why, two magnets of course.

They don't "SLAM!" together - only in close proximity. - close enough to create an "equal and opposite reation" in bounce force. Here's where magnetism is like gravity.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by BEAKER

They don't "SLAM!" together - only in close proximity. - close enough to create an "equal and opposite reation" in bounce force. Here's where magnetism is like gravity.

Excellent observation. I was thinking about that in relation to how fast gravity & magnetism act while I was pickin' all dem pins off o' my magnetic. I was so carefully trying to pour them off the mat into their box with the magnet nearby when the sheet twisted & all the pins fell on the table. Some that fell far away just stayed there, some a little closer just moved a little point wise & stopped, but all that fell close jumped all together in a woosh and a kind of funny rustle sound with a metalic clink.
So we have that magnetism & gravity get faster the closer things get together.
By the way, I was thinking it was 'claw' hammers you said you used? The claw hammer is an excellent analogy for the magnetic axis where one side is for putting in & one side is for putting out, plus two faces right angled between each business end which give you the space you need to turn it whichever end you need to use .

[BEAKER]

Hey Turtle - I think I've got it figured out! Just wanted to let you know Im still working on it.

Beaker

[BEAKER]

I've taken a sabatical of sorts from the pursuit of perpetual motion, but I've got a few relatively new ideas (really modified, old ones) to try. The picture of the stage of my invention that I chose to put on Hypography so long ago is years old - and was then, and I had actually gotten way past that concept when I put it on this page. It hasn't stirred up as much conersation as I had expected; but that's ok. I gave up hope on that design long before I posted it here. Anyway - I've certainly achieved the sort of motion I've been looking for as the primary initial motion; and of course achieving that over and over again (perpetually) without outside intervention is the key to the lock. So I'm about to try another key - if anybody cares. I'm Still working on it. If it wasn't for crackpots we'd all still be scared of fire, and eating our meat raw.

Beaker.

[Boerseun]

Well, good luck with your venture. Just keep the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in mind before you open the bubbly in celebrating your invention!

[BEAKER]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Well, good luck with your venture. Just keep the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in mind before you open the bubbly in celebrating your invention!

Thanks Boerseun.

Believe me I'm not celebrating anything other than the rather incredulous looks on the faces of the few people I have shown my previously "top of the line" design to - in spite of the fact that it did not sustain it's own motion. I am not out to decieve anyone, myself included; and I can apreciate the reason the second law exists. If I say "laws are ment to be broken", I know that in fact that is not necessarily true. That one, in the minds of virtually everone who has a clue, is empirically beyond the realm of that possibility.

However, I have caused magnets to do things that would make any rational sceptic think twice about that law. enough to inspire me to continue my experimentation - when I have time, which is getting harder and harder to find; but I digress.

Beaker.

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by BEAKER

However, I have caused magnets to do things that would make any rational sceptic think twice about that law. enough to inpire me to continue my experimentation - when I have time, which is getting harder and harder to find; but I digress.

Beaker.

Im a rational skeptic, try me

[BEAKER]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Im a rational skeptic, try me

-Well y'know - I could tell you; but then I'd have ta kill ya.

In all seriousness - I know that it's one of those things that nobody will ever believe untill it happens - (if it happens) - that it actually works.

And throughout the ages; the greatest inventions have been concieved, developed and brought to fruition by only one or two people while the world at large sat in dissbelief.

- Untill a few years later when they could no longer remember a time when that invention wasn't commonplace.

Beaker.

[BEAKER]

I have no problem with the second law of thermodynamics. I'm counting on it. Based on my experimentation; that law will in no way prohibit the (perpetual) motion I am atempting to achieve. It wouldn't work without it. It's not somehing to overcome, it's simply a dynamic to work within.

[Boerseun]

You're telling us absolutely nothing of your "machine", or "plan" or "invention", or how it's supposed to work.

We cannot contribute to this discussion at all.

Jay-Q have asked you to explain to him what the deal is all about, that he's an open-minded skeptic. You simply refused to answer him.

Therefore, I'm of the opinion that your discussion here is absolutely meaningless (apart from impossible in a 2nd-Law driven universe), and that the reason you believe that you have created "free" energy is because you don't understand the entrophy flow of the system you've built.

We can take a look at this system of yours and gladly advise you as to its pitfalls. The only hitch here is that you have to show it to us in order to be of any help, or for this discussion to bear any fruit whatsoever.

Lacking that, there is simply no point to continuing this thread, and I move it be closed.