Here is the planned modification:


Keep in mind that this is merely a diagram. There's a lot more that goes into the construction. The purpose of this diagram is to give a basic idea of how the device is supposed to work. This is also only the One-Cycle configuration. The goal is to work up to at least a Tri-Cycle configuration.

The only other change I'd make to the diagram configuration is that instead of a counter weight on the other end, I'd just go ahead and add another magnet and spring setup. This would double my gain and aid in getting the opposite end of the armature a little more boost to ensure it makes it all the around. Obviously, this is adding more friction/resistance into the mix, but most of that is being stored in the spring which is then transferred back into the system.

By the way, the magnets I am using having 45N rating. The great thing about Neodymium magnets is that, the smaller you get, the stronger the rating. There are 48N rating Neodymium magnets that are barely the size of a pin head. The store I got these others from sell them in packs of 100 but they provide extra because they're so small, it's difficult to count them. My point is that the system is downward scaleable. Not only that, but the efficiency would be greater.

I remember reading about some on exitmundi that I then checked out on wiki. I'll look them up for you if you want.



There's debate about this, because aparrently certain particles just plain appear and disappear at the quantum level. This would mean that energy is both being created and destroyed. There's no solid research or proof on this, though. Mainly because of a certain cat we all know and love.

Garfield?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]There's debate about this, because aparrently certain particles just plain appear and disappear at the quantum level. This would mean that energy is both being created and destroyed. There's no solid research or proof on this, though. Mainly because of a certain cat we all know and love.[/QUOTE]

That's zero point, is it not? If I remember correctly, the amount of energy available from the quantum vacuum is infinitesimal.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]There's debate about this, because aparrently certain particles just plain appear and disappear at the quantum level. This would mean that energy is both being created and destroyed. There's no solid research or proof on this, though. Mainly because of a certain cat we all know and love.[/QUOTE]
its very interesting actually, you come across it quite often when doing Feymann diagrams and calculations at the sub-atomic level. The mass-energy conversation can be violated but only for the brief-ist of moments during an interaction.

Both sides of the equations will balance at the end of it, but it would be impossible to get from one side to the other without something "wierd" going on, there are calculations that depend on knowing the mass of the "top" quark as during the interaction it appears and alters the final result from what is otherwise expected, the calculations agree with experimental results.

I think the general term used to describe these interactions is "self-energy corrections" and they come about from QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics).

Thats pretty high order stuff to understand and the calculations to do it require a lot mathematical skill and a big computer and please to asked me to explain the in's and out's of it just yet, I don't know it...I'm doing an advanced course on particle physics next semester and so if you really want to know ask me in 4 months.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]aparrently certain particles just plain appear and disappear at the quantum level.[/QUOTE]From what I understand:
Those are called virtual particles, and it's an aspect of zero-point.

The particle and its antiparticle equal are created randomly and then quickly self-annihilate. Every once in a while a virtual particle materializes within a black hole, causing the other particle to be 'boosted' into a real particle and causing the black hole to lose mass (in the form of gamma radiation).

Just the same, zero-point energy isn't "free" although it's theoretically possible to extract energy from it. From what I understand the only way to do so would be if we could create and safely contain an artificial singularity. I think finding away to 'flip' matter into antimatter would be much easier, though. And unlike the black hole thing, humans will probably discover it before the sun turns into a brown dwarf.

here's a picture of the Top quark being created and distoryed in a Faymann diagram...

I think me, Jon'C & Kyle are talking about the same thing...

Well...you get my meaning at least. There's a theoretical solution to obtaining energy for free...ish...there. That's the only thing I could think of as far as free energy goes.

It's not free, it's just extracting ambient/ground-state energy from the universe. (Actually converting it into gamma radiation, which can be used to create electricity).

As I mentioned, though, it would require the formation and containment of a singularity (without requiring more energy than can be extracted from it). This is so far beyond our current technology that the means of doing so cannot even be imagined yet.
Storing and safely reacting matter with antimatter is not only safer but it's a lot easier to do. Which speaks volumes about how hard it would be to build a ZPM.

It's a funny thing about advanced math, once you've taken it you find it difficult to understand why no one else gets it. It's crazy to think I know know more math than almost all of the teachers who taught me before college, and I'm only a sophmore.

This liberal arts major was trying to tell me that physics was "bunk," after he had heard somewhere of a helocopter that "defied the laws of physics." Basically like a bumble bee does. According to some principle I forget, a bumble bee is too big compared to its wing span to maintain flight, and yet it does.

I was trying to explain that nothing really defies the laws of physics, a study of reality, and that if it appears to, it must be for a reason. He argued up and down for a good few minutes before I realized that the conversation was retarded (and I was retarded for not realizing it earlier). It completely blew my mind.

On a side note: I find myself disappointed with the discovery channel often when they air crap like that. There was that one special on aliens on other planets, and what they are like. It was all complete and total speculation that filled up and hour. They actually had educated people talking about this, who apparently got their degree in wild speculation.

Then there was that special on the Branch Dravidians that pretty much defended their illegal posession of assualt weapons, their firing upon officers of the law, etc. It wasn't even trying to debate whether these thing should be illegal, or whether the ATF was being too heavy-handed.

That's kinda the point that i was making. Energy requires energy. But then again the idea of a machine that harvests energy that is powered by itself is in fact the idea of a perpetual motion machine. But even then, the upkeep of the machine would require more energy and so on and so forth. So i say screw it, lets all just play Halo instead. :p

[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]It's a funny thing about advanced math, once you've taken it you find it difficult to understand why no one else gets it. It's crazy to think I know know more math than almost all of the teachers who taught me before college, and I'm only a sophmore.

This liberal arts major was trying to tell me that physics was "bunk," after he had heard somewhere of a helocopter that "defied the laws of physics." Basically like a bumble bee does. According to some principle I forget, a bumble bee is too big compared to its wing span to maintain flight, and yet it does.

I was trying to explain that nothing really defies the laws of physics, a study of reality, and that if it appears to, it must be for a reason. He argued up and down for a good few minutes before I realized that the conversation was retarded (and I was retarded for not realizing it earlier). It completely blew my mind.[/QUOTE]

i dunno about the states, but here in the uk teachers have to have a degree in the field they teach - so i know as much about maths as my teachers did.

Also bees can fly.

(they flap their wings either further or faster than other insects, cant remember which because it's 3 in the morning, and i'm battered)

Their flight couldn't be explained using aerodynamics. Which is a very specific area of physics.

It's not that their flight couldn't be explained with physics. The person arguing that just didn't read the article correctly. Aerodynamics can't explain the curvature of spacetime either, but that doesn't mean spacetime isn't curved.