[evan_au]

The magnets are pushed together by ambient radiation.

This sounds like an explanation for the Casimir effect; it doesn't sound like an explanation for magnets.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

[Bored chemist]

It's a strange thread this one. It's like asking "What is the power source for a shelf?"
"I can put a rock on a shelf, and it seems as if it will stay there forever with no sign of any power source. ".

Why would anyone think it needs power?

[William McC]

It's a strange thread this one. It's like asking "What is the power source for a shelf?"
"I can put a rock on a shelf, and it seems as if it will stay there forever with no sign of any power source. ".

Why would anyone think it needs power?

Yet go look at your shelves, in the closet and see if they are slightly dipped down in the center. Over time many shelves give way. The shelve is an electrical effect according to my teaching. I have seen the metal holders for ceiling fans over time slowly bend downward. There is a constant force from gravity that must be fought in order to hold something still. The springs on cars are constantly failing ever growing weaker and weaker.

I can levitate a block of aluminum with an AC electromagnet, and prove it requires energy to levitate it. I attached an image and this below is the whole link.

http://www.rockwelder.com/History/WorldsFair/WF.htm

Willam McCormick

[evan_au]

go look at your shelves, in the closet and see if they are slightly dipped down in the center

It is true that many macroscopic systems slowly decay over time.
- However, many atomic-level systems (defined by quantum theory) do not decay over time. The atomic-level magnetic field of unpaired electrons is one such system
- This is because macroscopic systems have many adjacent states, and they can easily decay from one to another, increasing entropy. Quantum systems have few adjacent states (especially if they are already in the ground state), and so they can continue for long periods without decay.

A macroscopic permanent magnet does lose strength over time, due to temperature and vibration.
- This occurs via the growth and migration of magnetic domains which oppose the general magnetic field of the permanent magnet
- However, the underlying quantum magnetic field of the atom remains just as strong (although perhaps reversed in direction).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism#Origin_of_magnetism
 

[David Reichard]

JP'S answer seems very helpful to me.Electrons are magnetic dipoles,termed spin,if I am not mistaken.If we use a magnetizer to force all the electron dipoles to line up and make a big magnet as a group,they are like a stretched spring held at both ends.As long as it is held still,no more energy is needed to be addedTthe magnetizer added enough.The magnetic force is constant,No work is done.However if the electrons' alignments are allowed to go back to random,the stored energy of the magnetizer is released.Scientists are now intensely engaged in working with magnetic phenomenae and spin to create new effects.Electrical motors are actually using electromagnetic effects to produce motion,and the energy used is electrical energy,doing work.Friction and other losses keep a motor running on just still magnetic fields from staying in motion or doing work.It was the idea of perpetual motion.

[Mika Loiselle]

Is the repulsive force of the electromagnet as strong as the attractive one???

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

 We humans tend to always consider mechanic energy as when refering with anything that is made of matter like a mechanic engine, but from a certain point of view, one has pushed two pieces of magnets one towards the other, but one magnet never has trully pushed one away from the other, they are only the catalistor for a field, magnetic field...
  Wherever lock on two magnets that are repeling one the other from an apropriated distance, now what do you have, a mechanic "system", trully there seems to be no motion, but there is, the particles are not stationary or static as the whole seems to be, the fields are constantly interracting one with the other, so one could say that the constant repeling of the two magnets are producing a inconstant magnetic field, that on itself has the "potential" to infinite energy...
  The elephant on the room is refering to "electrical energy" or any sort of energy witch we humans could harvest, isn't the topic subject but is the final product of the search...

 Well to achieve a practical way to structure such convenience fields on a practical way that would allowd us to harves that into motion, thus electrical energy, one should set mobile magnetic fields from outside in the static repelant one...
 We would want to harves the energy potential from that both repelant static magnetic fields, for that we need to give it "spin", not on itself, we need to cheat, keeping the magnets on the interior stationary repeling themselves just in order to produce a considerable repelant magnetic field, than on the exterior one should set a external layer os mobile magneticfields that when in motion would convert, not the "magnetic repulsive forces" but more like reshape the result, the repelant field, changing it from balanced to something resabling a hurricane, literally use the external magnetic rims to disrupt the center forcing it to take such shape, from that point on, we would not be harvesting the energy of the original static magnetic fields, witch we couldn't, one would be "shomehow"(trough vibration or high frequency), harvesting the potential of that new field, its hard to explain without the awnser of where does this forces come from, but surely the magnetic force is provenient from motion, is we can't see, means only that is happening in lower scale...
  In resume the trick would not how to harvest the energy from two magnetic field that are repepling one the other, but instead, how to restructure that very fields to be able to allowd a proper device to harvest the magnetic motion...

what cames to my mind is in principle a stationary internal magnetic system formed by a circle of repelant magnetics, and on the surrownding areas a spiral, not a complete or perfect spiral, but in purpose, incomplete spiral, like a coil, that is static around the inner ring, untill we start to set the inner ring to spin (the magnets not the field, it is still static). Such spining would force the "magnetic coild" to move up and down really fast, form that point on, all one would need is some sort of membranes that would be able to harves this very motion, converting it into electrical energy...

 The not coerent possibility is to keep the inner ring completly stationary and produce the magnetic coild using perfectly alignets cilindrical magnets that would set themselves in motion, again up and down, just by being constantly repeling themselves, side by side, with the inner ring, little pushes that would generate a considerable motion, altough I'm not sure that his is possible, without a external source of impulse power, like the first one does require to set itself in motion...

 For the last consideration pick up the image of such coild that is made from numerous cilindrical magnets, and prolong the coild lenght in order to form a perfect circle, inside of it set the conductive wire, and on the laterals of this circle set two spiral magnetic coils, just like above, that are working using the metod describled above, this wouldn't be a true infinite energy system, there is no such thing, but it would be more a trick, two small spiral sources, seting on motion another system, that is for it's turn, harvesting the "potential" of infinite energy that those two spiral sources have on themselves, but could never achieve on their own... For any purpose, one does not need to try to harvest the energy on the repulsive forces, there is non to be, one need to find a practical way to harvest their potential to, compensating eachother limitations by forcing one to interect with the other trought another one, and this one, would be trully infinite energy, "as long as the others are still spining on themselves"

[Bored chemist]

I can levitate a block of aluminum with an AC electromagnet, and prove it requires energy to levitate it.


Willam McCormick

Why do you think it is helpful to show that you can hold up a block of metal inefficiently?

[William McC]

I can levitate a block of aluminum with an AC electromagnet, and prove it requires energy to levitate it.


Willam McCormick

Why do you think it is helpful to show that you can hold up a block of metal inefficiently?

It is not inefficient to use an electromagnet at all. It is rather efficient, in fact they are using repulsion bearings in motors because it is so efficient. The mechanical bearing uses more energy than the electromagnetic bearing.

If we were talking about the security locks on doors that use steel instead of aluminum for the target of the magnetic field, and I hold up a piece of steel against the force of gravity, as it is used to keep bank security doors closed, because it is rather efficient, would there still be an argument?

Permanent magnets are creating a magnetic field constantly, they are redirecting flows of ambient radiation constantly. If you can flux or pulse the magnetic field of a permanent magnet you can cause continues movement of objects. People have done it but there is just not enough power to make it useful as a device in our lives. Which shows just how efficient AC magnetic fields are.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[Bored chemist]

Using an ac electromagnet to hold something up when yo could use a shelf is inefficient.
The use of electromagnetic locks is nothing to do with efficiency and a lot to do with remote operation.

Do yo have evidence for this "Permanent magnets are creating a magnetic field constantly, they are redirecting flows of ambient radiation constantly."
 or is it just more of the woowoo that you keep posting? I guess I will find out when, like so much of your stuff, it gets dumped into the "that can't be true" stream.

[William McC]

I m not a smart guy but I do have imagination. I believe that we will soon be capable to travel on space time “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” .by Albert Einstein 
I think that the humanity is like a piece of metal on a large magnet, where, we are being pull down by gravity. The same way with our planet Earth that it being pull dawn by the gravity of the Sun and the Sun by another superior gravitational force.
When, we get to the point in which we are capable of building and space ship that could create a gravitational force strong enough to push the Earth gravitational force, the same way the earth pushes the Sun we are going to be traveling on space time. (Sun’s gravity +( - ( + Earth gravity)) +( - ( + artificial gravitational force  + mc²)) )…A magnet its capable to create + and - witch it creates a gravitational force in a small scale.

We had the capabilities to go to other solar systems in a couple of years time back in the late sixties and early seventies, but no one was interested. We sent a ship, and it made it.  No one ever questions the speed of light because no one has a light speed meter or an experiment to prove it. Although I have heard some people that know, have shinned a laser to the moon, and when they blocked the laser on earth it instantly shut off on the moon.

There is no such thing as space time, space is nothing, an empty place for matter, and time is the comparison by the observer of moving objects to determine how much time has passed.

Atomic clocks can be effected by multiple harmless almost undetectable rays, to give inaccurate readings while sitting on a test bench.

We have no scientific limitations. We do have the crazy dreams of people that are trying to do the impossible rather than the possible. Which leads them to sit and spew crazy notions as fact. They even write books about those facts, and then sell them to schools. They do not realize that money comes from the printing press. If you want money so badly print it. You cannot get money anywhere else other than the printing press. I have seen people become physically ill for a few moments as they grasp that reality.

Sincerely ,

William McCormick

[Bored chemist]

"Although I have heard some people that know, have shinned a laser to the moon, and when they blocked the laser on earth it instantly shut off on the moon. "

How?
Practically nobody has access to bright enough lasers.
If someone had a laser bright enough to light up the moon so you caould see it from earth, cow come everybody on earth didn't see it change colour.

This site covers the maths for you
http://what-if.xkcd.com/13/


"No one ever questions the speed of light because no one has a light speed meter or an experiment to prove it."

Lots of people know about the speed of light- from the delay on international calls bounced via satellites.
And the SOL was first measured a very long time ago.

So, as usual, your posts are full of vague accusations- but devoid of any evidence.
Why not just stop?

[syhprum]

70 years ago radio communication via moon bounce was all the rage, when Prof Lovell first got his large steerable dish in operation he demonstrated on TV its high gain by installing a taxi radio system on it , directing it onto the moon and received his hallo 2.5 seconds later.
The people who use the reflectors installed  for ranging use a high powered laser and get very little signal back.

[William McC]

70 years ago radio communication via moon bounce was all the rage, when Prof Lovell first got his large steerable dish in operation he demonstrated on TV its high gain by installing a taxi radio system on it , directing it onto the moon and received his hallo 2.5 seconds later.
The people who use the reflectors installed on the for ranging use a high powered laser and get very little signal back.

It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. That was the experiment they did from the moon. And broadcast it all over the world, I dare you to find those tapes.

Once the beam is created it takes no time at all to transmit effects across the already established beam. But you do need that start up time. So if you bounce radio off the moon, you have to establish two beams one to the moon and one from the moon to the earth. What they did during the Apollo missions was create a radio beam between two dishes, and then basically transmit by shutting off power intermittently, that actually raises voltage a bit, back to the unfathomable voltage of natural ambient radiation, which transmitted instantly. They kept having to warn the astronauts to remember the 1.5 second turn around rule. That is why some thought  the mission was a hoax, because many times the astronauts would instantly reply, with camera men on the ground recording the mission control operators, you could see on TV, the mission control fellow, making a communication to the Apollo crew, and getting an instant reply from space. It was the radio system though, not a hoax.

If you have ever done any electrical wiring you know that you go to the old wiring guide to pick the right piece of wire. Well that works 95 percent of the time. They created that little guide because of horrific accidents created by the misunderstanding of the actuality. Circular mills, annealed copper verses hardened copper, can alter the outcome of your project drastically. So they created a 90 percent over all electrical guide that will take 90 percent of the people who use it to success. Unfortunately some of those guides leave out length of run, which is actually calculated at about 75 feet. In the old days this worked 95 percent of the time. Where it did not work usually in mansions or commercial applications an experienced electrician knew what needed to be done in most cases and threw away the book. So it always seemed to work. Today with everyone wanting to just do some wiring we have more and more accidents.

My point is that the real universe as it is, was too much for most to fathom. In the real universe there are no actual shortages of materials including gold. There are no real wars only political agendas. There is no real food shortage rather manufactured shortages. The scientists with total understanding of the universe had a hard time restraining them selves and their tongues about such matters. Since most could not face the real universe they created a play set of rules that will get you through most of the day to day things we do. Radio, x-rays, heat, have all been packaged into formula that are somewhat effective. However if you ask a businessman that is in the business politely, for the right reason, he will confide that they had to tweak and rework many theories thought as solid.  Some theories "laws" we hold high are just garbage.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[Bored chemist]

It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. That was the experiment they did from the moon. And broadcast it all over the world, I dare you to find those tapes.

No, once again you have misunderstood.

You are the one making outlandish claims so it's your job to supply the evidence.
YOU have to find the tapes- not us.

[Colin2B]

It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. .........

.......Once the beam is created it takes no time at all to transmit effects across the already established beam. But you do need that start up time.

William
What you have stated above is incorrect, or to give it the benefit of the doubt a New Theory. We have discussed this issue at length with the Box in other threads.

You are getting a reputation as someone who provides unreliable, incorrect, misleading and sometimes dangerous information.
The moderators do not have the time to monitor and move all your threads so we will ask you to confine your posts to the New Theories and That Can't Be True sections of the forum until further notice.

thank you

[William McC]

It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. That was the experiment they did from the moon. And broadcast it all over the world, I dare you to find those tapes.

No, once again you have misunderstood.

You are the one making outlandish claims so it's your job to supply the evidence.
YOU have to find the tapes- not us.

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists that also heard what I mentioned about the 1.5 second radio turn around rule, and claim we did not go to the moon, we did. I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, and deny that there are particles faster than light when there certainly are. When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers that showed footage from the fifties of a hovering flaming UFO, just a few feet above the ground, claiming it was proof aliens were amongst us. It was beautiful footage with sound. It was actually my fathers boss's hobby moon rock collector. They used to show that all the time on the history channel. When I tried to get a hold of it, it too vanished.

As kids we watched the entire moon landing, hundreds of hours of video. They appear to be almost all gone now. But I can watch black and white footage from before World War Two. Believe what you like I have more than enough reality for myself.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

[William McC]

It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. .........

.......Once the beam is created it takes no time at all to transmit effects across the already established beam. But you do need that start up time.

William
What you have stated above is incorrect, or to give it the benefit of the doubt a New Theory. We have discussed this issue at length with the Box in other threads.

You are getting a reputation as someone who provides unreliable, incorrect, misleading and sometimes dangerous information.
The moderators do not have the time to monitor and move all your threads so we will ask you to confine your posts to the New Theories and That Can't Be True sections of the forum until further notice.

thank you

When you are searching for truth in a known disingenuous environment run by known disingenuous sorts. It would be foolhardy to assume that knowledge approved by such sorts and systems would be totally accurate. Because knowledge stamps out ignorance knowledge is certainly not in abundance around us.

As far as suggesting dangerous behavior it was other members who did so. And then denied that the inside of metal cylinders are coated with an oxide. If that is not dangerous and life threatening then it really matters not what I say or what actions you take against me. These are real accidents that have happened in scuba shops, self contained breathing apparatus gear, and in the work place. The amounts of oxide on the surface of just about any metal are actually great in volume and weight. That is why the gas added to those tanks can be so corrupted. It is the weight of the gas added compared to the weight of the contaminant on the walls of the tank. If this can be disputed it will not be disputed by knowledge.

I have warned a lot of people that use the scientific grade gases in gas cylinders that the gas put in although totally pure is not what comes out. I have personally used scientific grade gas and it is much better than the next lowest grade, that is much better than the welding grade. However towards the end of the bottle there are strange odors created by the last gases in the tank. This does not occur ever when using liquid Argon or Liquid helium.

These contaminants are not my imagination. If you go to a large manufacturer of liquified gases, and scientific grade pressurized cylinders of gas, they will tell you the same, if you tell them you want very pure gas for your research. They will only recommend liquified product. Because of the oxides or chlorates or carbon in the walls of the tanks. The very pure gases absorb these contaminants from the walls of the tank. I was just warning people of this.

And all I did to help them understand how I know there is a difference between the two gasses is mention that while working in plants that fill the liquid containers, and the pressurized cylinders, that I was exposed to the very pure evaporating gases of nitrogen and CO2. That I at first thought would be life threatening. But as the workers stood there in massive clouds of the stuff working as usual I started to become more comfortable with it. I then learned that the liquid product is certainly not immediately life threatening under the conditions I experienced it in. Even though I would have thought it would have been. Yet small amounts of gas in pressurized gas cylinder form were immediately life threatening by actual experience. From the pressurized cylinder there was an immediate burning of the respiratory tract. This is not the case of the pure evaporating liquid.

During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect. Now I am in no way suggesting people do this for fun. I am just relaying what you might see or do if you perform those duties. Yet I was almost made unconscious by CO2 from a fire extinguisher in a confined space with no fire present. And also CO2 from very small cylinders had this same effect.

The CO2 in welding cylinders is also not pleasant to inhale and can irritate the respiratory tract and surely suffocate in confined spaces quickly. This is real stuff done by real people. I do not know how you can claim I am ordering people to do dangerous things. I am in fact warning them of the actual dangers of pressurized gas cylinders, the surface of said cylinders do contain oxygen and other contaminants. These contaminants are absorbed into the pure gases.

If that belongs in the this can't be true area, I am not the fool.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[Bored chemist]

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists .... I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, ... When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers...

You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.

[William McC]

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists .... I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, ... When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers...

You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.

If you are aware of pipe freezing apparatus, you know that there is a siphon tube in the liquid CO2 container, that brings liquid to the collar through a hose, that is applied to the pipe that you wish to freeze. There it evaporates absorbing heat from the pipe, just like in refrigeration systems. I do not know where you get your information from, I personally do this stuff. You can buy the equipment to do this stuff commercially from large manufacturers. So I do see any need to prove myself.

As far as liquid CO2 coming out, it is liquid I have gotten it on me several times it is cold. There is a certain amount of pressure and a certain lowered ambient temperature created by the release of liquid CO2. Again if you have doubts try google.

If you are worried about danger you would warn of oxides on the surface of metals. And other contaminates. When you remove the surface of what most would call a clean or totally sanitary stainless steel surface, there is a lot of oxidation present. That is how the metal exists. Without the oxidation there would be no metal. It would react to nothing.

The tank the pure liquid noble gases are put in have contaminants, however the liquid product, will expand exponentially creating a ratio of noble gas to tank surface contaminant that is extremely high. Much higher than a cylinder with the same contaminants and a small amount of pure gas input. The amount of contaminants in gaseous cylinders has surprised highly trained experts.

You should acknowledge oxides and other contaminants on the walls of all metal cylinders, that can save lives.

Sincerely,

William McCormick