informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/KEELYNET/ENERGY/tmidevic.asc
root@procul 278a90f7ce Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

870 lines
42 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

______________________________________________________________________________
| File Name : TMIDEVIC.ASC | Online Date : 01/09/95 |
| Contributed by : Glenda Stocks | Dir Category : ENERGY |
| From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 |
| KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 |
| A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I spoke with Mr. Harris around 5PM today and he says he applied for a patent
on this device back in 1978 and it was rejected. A Dr. Marion Bowman from
Washington travelled out to Mr. Harris' home to witness the operation of the
device. He was amazed and returned to Washington enthusiastic about its
applications. Shortly after this demonstration, all copies of the patent
application and other information subsequently disappeared from the Washington
Patent Office. In addition, Mr. Stewart's home was broken into and his
original drawings, papers, applications and correspondence was stolen.
Mr. Harris is disabled and has health problems which prevent him from actively
researching the device himself. He tells me he built this thing in one
session as if it were inspired by some outside influence. As noted in the
following document, the 'flapper' resulted from a dream that helped him solve
a perplexing problem with the device. Stewart said the unit provides
tremendous force and he had to use the tinker toy wheels TO SLOW IT DOWN. He
has not yet placed it in a rotating wheel or rotary track though he has no
doubt it will drive a wheel or magnet.
I informed Stewart of John Searls' rotating magnets and his use of a circular
track with a cylindrical magnet placed horizontally on the track, wherein it
would start moving around the track on its own. This is the very basis of the
Searl flying machine. The same principle is used in the Hummel flying disk,
the Howard Johnson patent, the Troy Reed invention, the Gary magnetic motor
and several others. So, there is AMPLE GROUND for the claims of Mr. Stewart
despite all the flames from those who live to create negative mischief.
We here at KeelyNet will definitely experiment with the phenomenon and report
not only to Mr. Harris as per our discussion, but also to KeelyNet and our
many other associates and networkers. If you choose to experiment with this
or a version of it, please share your results with us and with the inventor as
he has so kindly shared his work with us.......Thank you!........>>> Jerry
Also, I'd like to thank Glenda Stocks for sharing this
fascinating file with the KeelyNet group and our associates!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theory of Magnetic Instability
A device by Stewart Harris
Origin: XBN - 0004 - F:NSHIFTCP
From: STEWART HARRIS
To: GLENDA STOCKS
Date: 01/04/95 at 19:10
Re: VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Glenda:
> I have used this in the hopes I will not be out of line with regard to
> crossposting information you expressed interest in with regard to my
> device.
> What follows is postings on the device by others on RIME, Science. I
> will put the headings on once, and then state who is posting for some
> form of brevity.
> I must congratulate Judy Stein from New York as being both an observant
> writer but quite good in describing what she received from me. I have a
> videotape of my device in action, following by a video of the CNN report
> I refer to wherein it shows NASA attempting to move a drop of water up a
> single incline, and without success, it moving only halfway. I know why
> it will not proceed further.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Conference: 28,SCIENCE
> Date: 1994-06-22,14:36
> From: JUDY STEIN
> To: JIM GOODMAN
> Subject: Harris device 1/2
> Let me use the terms "incline" and "decline" to refer to the two sides
> of each of the two peaks in the demo box, the terms referring to what
> the runner is doing when it traverses them (see diagrams).
> The runner has the general shape of a barbell. Two Tinkertoy wheels, one
> on either end, are the bells. Something that resembles a roll of
> Lifesavers strung on a rod forms the bar between the wheels--the
> Lifesavers, I gather, are circular magnets with a hole in the middle,
> I'd guess about a quarter of an inch thick and an inch in diameter, and
> there are eight or 10 of them strung on the rod. The Tinkertoy wheels
> are about an inch and a half in diameter. The runner looks as though
> it's about six inches long, total.
> Cross section view
runner starts here
\|/
|
| | /\ /\ |
| | / \ / \ |
| | / \ / \ |
| / \/ \ |
|------------------------------- |
| |
| <--------- runner ends up here
|____________________________________|
> The angles of incline and decline are considerably exaggerated in the
> diagram. It looks to me as though the declines are shorter and more
> steeply angled than the inclines; the inclines seem to be about 2.5"
> long and at 25 degrees, while the declines are more like 1" long and
> about 45 degrees (rough estimate). The height of the triangle looks like
> about 3/4" or so.
> On either side of the track are two additional rolls of these circular
> magnets (four in all), the rolls being at right angles to the magnets on
> the runner. Each of the two rolls of magnets on either side is set at an
> angle to match the angle of the inclines.
Top view
|<--track-->|
____________|____________
| ___| | |___ |
| |___| (start) |___| |
| |___| |___| |
| |___| incline |___| <---------roll of magnets, positioned at
| |___| |___| | the same angle as the slope of
| |___| |___| | the incline
| |___| |___| |
| |___|____________|___| |
| | | |
| | decline | <-----------no magnets here, but not as much
| | | | space between the rolls as I've
| ___|____________|___ | shown
| |___| |___| |
| |___| |___| |
| |___| incline |___| |
| |___| |___| |
| |___| |___| |
| |___| |___| |
| |___|____________|___| |
| | | |
| | decline | |
| | | |
| |____________| |
| (finish) |
|________________________|
> The runner is positioned by hand at the bottom of the first incline (top
> of the top-view diagram). When it is released, it moves rapidly up the
> first incline, down the first decline, up the second incline, and down
> the second decline. When it reaches the bottom of the second decline, it
> simply falls down into the lower level of the box (bottom of the
> top-view diagram).
> It's clear the runner is *released*, not given a push. It has to be
> aligned correctly. My guess is the person aligning it feels a pressure
> of the runner against his fingers when it's properly aligned. In the
> demo, the person aligns it and then simply lays his finger on the rod to
> keep it from moving, then removes his finger, and the runner starts to
> move immediately.
> These diagrams are very crude. The demo itself is extremely crude--as
> Stewart has said, it's a cardboard box with a lot of Scotch tape holding
> things together.
Stewart, you are right, she has done an excellent job of describing it, and
the diagrams are good also. I will share this with the Keelynet BBS, as they
are usually interested in devices like yours. If I get any feedback from
anyone, I will share it with you on the conferences. I will reproduce the
remainder of your file here for the I_UFO conference (where we discuss UFO's
and New Science) and for other areas where I will share this information.
Let's hope that we will get feedback from other sources that will help us all
to understand the force(s) at work here. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is a sample of Mr. Ken Stuckas accusing me of a hoax, and
eventually, fraud.
This is part of what keeps me from doing a great deal with this.
With no evidence of ill will on my part, Mr. Stuckas, a credentialed scientist
on several Science echos, simply attacks me out of, what, pique or with a
sense to destroy me. I intend to find out more about this later in a
courtroom, but for now it is simply interesting to note.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-02,11:59
From: KEN STUCKAS
To: STEWART HARRIS
Subject: Harris device
-=> While eating a book entitled "Harris device", Stewart Harris mumbled:
SH> I did not understand what the gentleman said myself. How can I create
SH> an optical illusion in a video studio under the eyes of commercial
SH> photographers with cardboard and scotch tape.
Easy. You just ask them to tilt the camera at the same angle that the device
is tilted to disguise the fact that the whole thing is going down hill. Mind
giving me the phone number of the commercial photographers who made the video?
***I supplied this for him, but he never called.
SH> As for sending a tape, being poor, unwilling to change that situation
SH> by effort and disability, I am limited to sort of one tape a month,
SH> (Cost about $15. Can't infringe on Helen's bingo money.) I am afraid
SH> latecome and hostiles will have to wait a very, very long time.
Oh, you aren't willing to make money off someone who understands science, huh?
You confuse skeptical criticism with hostility. How interesting. I don't think
it's ethical to use this echo to advertise a product, let alone one that
claims to violate the well-known and accepted laws of conservation of energy.
If you mail these tapes, now you are putting yourself in the domain the the
U.S. Postal Service which has the authority to investigate mail fraud.
*** For the life of me I could not see how he translated an explanation of
my poverty into a refusal to make money from him. And to do you see any
effort at advertising? It was a science echo. And I have never made the
claims he states; scientists have stated if my device worked it would do
that. But that is not what I say because I don't even have the knowledge
to know it in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-02,11:59
From: KEN STUCKAS
To: STEWART HARRIS
Subject: Temporary energy stor 2/3
-=> While eating a book entitled "Temporary energy stor 2/3", Stewart
-=> Harris mumbled:
SH> So my first premise, that permanent magnets are a source of energy or
SH> force, is correct according to what I read here. Yet you say permanent
SH> magnets are not a source of energy. You seem to be supporting this by
SH> saying that my device is doing no work, therefore no energy or force
SH> is exerted.
SH> I am saying I cannot understand how a weight can be lifted to a height
SH> without work or force being done and without any energy input.
Replace your magnets with springs and you will see the problem. A compressed
spring has potential energy. I had to do work on the spring to load it with
the potential energy. That work came from an outside source. Once the spring
does work on some other system, I have to compress it again to get it do
repeat that work.
A magnet and an iron bar separated by a distance possess potential energy just
as a coiled spring does. Once they come in contact with one another or just
get closer to one another I have to do work on them to separate them.
*** As you can see from the drawings by Judy Stein, there is no 'contact with
one another' and you will notice that the runner is close to the magnets,
separated by wooden wheels, and they are never at any point along the
route up and down the inclines in a position where they have to be
'separated.' This is the common objection, the 'lines run perpendicular
and result in only attraction/repulsion' approach of current science. I am
demonstrating that the mass is moved parallel to the lines of force, there
is no magnetic lock, and, therefore, no need for that 'extra work' to
'separate and reset' the magnets or springs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: KEN STUCKAS
To: STEWART HARRIS
Subject: Temporary energy stor 3/3
-=> While eating a book entitled "Temporary energy stor 3/3", Stewart
-=> Harris mumbled:
SH> Now as far as a weight being at a height, I seriously doubt there is
SH> even a bad engineer or cannot work out some way to put that weight to
SH> good use. Yet as I understand what I am being told, either I cannot do
SH> what I say and I am lying, or lifting a mass to a height is not useful
SH> and cannot have any benefit to mankind.
How did that weight get to that height? You had to do work on it to get it
there, right? When the weight has fallen and, in the process, done work on
some system then I need to do work on the weight to lift it back up to that
height.
You cannot violate the law of conservation of energy here in the world of
classical mechanics. I will absolutely guarantee you that in the device you
are demonstrating, the total potential energy plus the total kinetic energy
at the beginning is greater than the totals of those values at the end. You
have lost some small amount of energy through the heat of frictionand
aerodynamic drag.
If the video you made seems to violate these principles then you have tilted
the device at such an angle so that the device operates by going down hill and
if you have deliberately and knowingly tilted the video camera at the same
angle to make the device appear level with the intent to decieve others, then
that's fraud.
*** Again, since it cannot be true because it would violate his laws of
physics, I must, then, be hoaxing the situation. This is also common in
all rebuttals to new science or ufo technology. He says that if the video
shows the mass as going up, then it must be going down because I had the
photographer tilt it, making it appear level, and that is fraud. He later
denies this.
SH> What is my goal? One is not scientific and not applicable in this
SH> echo. The other, and the reason I got into this with you and others,
SH> is to see if there is some way to explain what is being done without
SH> running into the initial blocks I came across some 18 years ago;
SH> namely, objection to the device because it will violate some physical
SH> laws.
Your only out is to appeal to those who believe in pseudoscience by claiming
the effect to lie in the domain of quantum electrodynamics. In that case I
refer you to Chapter 12 of the recent book by Murray Gell-Mann, the 1969 Nobel
laureate in physics "The Quark and the Jaguar." Chapter 12 is called "Quantum
Mechanics and Flapdoodle," which points out the errors of just about
everything that Judy Stein believes in.
SH> You and others put your fingers on what I consider to be a way out,
SH> and I am only exploring that possibility now with what I propose to
SH> build.
SH> If my flapper is successful, and I see no reason for it not to
SH> succeed, then I believe that the downward, pendulum-like swing which
SH> will bring the mass back into the track is a source of energy drawn
SH> upon from outside the system, which would be perfectly normal and
SH> would violate no laws.
Your intuition is apparently unaffected by scientific understanding.
SH> As to how long it will continue to operate, I don't know.
It will operate for exactly one cycle unless you are being deliberately
deceptive.
*** Here, since I did complete the 'flapper' since this dialogue, it has gone
more than one cycle, so I guess I am being deliberately deceptive. Now you
see why I have no real wish to go further and show this to the world.
Ken Stuckas is simply a clone for all the scientists who have ragged me
for 19 years now. It is not worth it.
*** Judy Stein rebuts some of the accusations of this being rigged, a hoax, an
optical illusion, a fraud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-06-30,17:19
From: JUDY STEIN
To: ERIK FRANCIS
Subject: HARRIS DEVICE
EF>> Whether his device actually produces any "net work," I'm not
EF>> qualified to say. But I'm cracking up at your "optical illusion"
EF>> description. You'd have to actually see the demo to realize how
EF>> hilarious that is.
EF> Keep in mind that unless one has direct three-dimensional access to a
EF> device, optical illusions and tricks are always possible (or, rather,
EF> much easier!). Not that this is the case; but it is always important
EF> to realize that it might be.
*** Mr. Francis is far more rational and polite, but there is the underlying
inference that it could be something which one is not really saying. This
is why I stopped sending out the tapes. Just more of a hoax, much as UFO
tapes are hoaxes.
I understand; this is certainly the case in theory. But I think if you were to
see the demo you'd realize why I said what I did.
(Not that this addresses your objection, and it isn't what I'm referring to,
but on the demo tape the apparatus is shoved around by hand (with the camera
running) so you see it doing its thing from all angles, several complete runs
from each angle. There are also closeups, with the camera right on top of the
apparatus.)
I don't quite know how to say this without sounding like I'm deprecating the
device, but it's really a rattletrap thing, like what a kid would throw
together. It wouldn't get any prizes at a high school science fair, it's too
messy, too crude. The *diagram* I posted here is more precise than the device.
I made neater dollhouses out of shirt cardboards when I was 10.
*** Ms. Stein was right in one sense. It would not win a prize in a high
school science fair. However, I must add that the son of a friend in Las
Vegas, who has been to the house many times and played with the device,
built a more suitable duplicate (Another reproduction I forgot to add to
that of the two gentlemen in Fido Science), and he won his high school
science fair, and was second in the State Science Fair here in Nevada.
That young man was Michael Wood, Son of Dennis Wood who posts on several
fido echos.
It is really barking up the wrong tree to suggest Stewart is trying to pull a
fast one with this thing. I don't have any idea whether it's significant or
not, but it is whatever it is and not something pretending to be something
else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-02,01:02
From: JIM HARFORD
To: RON FREIMUTH
Subject: Harris device
. RF> From Judy's diagram it appeared the mass exited your system with a .
. RF> velocity at exactly the height it was started. It would be hard to .
. RF> explain the kinetic energy of the mass at this point. .
It would be hard to explain only if the potential energy (energy of position)
of the mass was entirely gravitational. Then potential energy would be exactly
proportional to height. But since part of the potential energy of the mass is
due to the magnetic field that simple relationship is destroyed and one can no
longer visually determine whether what Judy saw is something ordinary or
something extraordinary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-02,21:02
From: ISRAEL SILVERMAN
To: RON FREIMUTH
Subject: Harris device
RF> From Judy's diagram it appeared the mass exited your system with a
RF> velocity at exactly the height it was started. It would be hard to
RF> explain the kinetic energy of the mass at this point.
This is correct. This is what I have seen as well.
RF> Will the mass still have any velocity if the exit point is exactly at
RF> the initial height?
The exit point appears to be at the same height as the entrance point.
However, the device unfortunately terminates PRECISELY at the end of the
second hill, and it becomes difficult to judge how far and whether the roller
would have continued for any distance after the end of the device. At the end
of the device, the roller literally falls off the device onto the floor or a
waiting hand.
*** This lack of movement at the end is strictly a matter of design. The
duplicates made by other gentlemen do proceed far beyond the end, and
there is even comment on this point as being one of the problems that
science faces in explaining this, as is alluded to in the above comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-02,18:37
From: BRIAN WHATCOTT
To: RON FREIMUTH
Subject: Harris Device
RF> From Judy's diagram it appeared the mass exited your system with a
RF> velocity at exactly the height it was started. It would be hard to
RF> explain the kinetic energy of the mass at this point.
RF> Will the mass still have any velocity if the exit point is exactly at
RF> the initial height?
I can say, sight unseen, the runner could have appreciable velocity if it
exited HIGHER.
You wouldn't be surprized if a wad of paper could shoot higher from an elastic
band, surely? Remember, if there's initial repulsion before the runner is
placed on the track, that's potential energy for the acceleration phase!
*** This is the general objection to the continuous motion aspect of this
device. The 'flapper' is designed to demostrate that this shortcuts the
repulsion aspect of the Theory of Magnetic Instability I have put
together; and this shows that the mass or runner can actually start from
scratch without the impetus of any passage through a repulsion phase.
I realize the PE is a function of height and distance from the magnets.
Now, I don't know how those disk magnets are stacked. All in the same
direction? If the moving mass were magnetized one could stack the magnets to
first attract, then repel. Equivalent approximately to a parabolic gravity
well. A mass would accelerate to the bottom, then *nearly* reach the top at
the other side.
*** Notice "nearly". Yet my runner does not nearly reach the upper apex, it
is accelerating at that point. Accelerating, so it is gaining momentum.
Add another force, gravity, and one can distort the well by adjusting the
curve of the track.
*** Here is one of my problems with this whole affair. Is gravity an energy
input or a force which is never consumed. If the latter, then COE does not
apply at all. Is any gravity used up when all objects fall. When a plane
flies, is gravity an input or a force. Thrust is required to overcome
gravity. I wonder why, when my mass is moved uphill against gravity, no
work is being done similar to the thrust of an airplane engine. So what is
the engine? It must be the magnets. But my magnets still work the same as
they did 19 years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-04,13:03
From: ISRAEL SILVERMAN
To: STEWART HARRIS
Subject: Harris device 1/2
SH> Never thought that, and it would not matter! You have not called me a
SH> fool, at least. Perhaps that is because neither of us is an expert.
SH> Only an expert can tell you the runner does not do what you see. I am
SH> used to it.
I have seen the videotape, and I see it does what you are saying.
I would, however, like to know how the magnets are arranged along the track.
For, having seen the device, I am sure I can buy a bunch of magnets and
construct a similar device. Perhaps even make one that is a bit better in
terms of efficiency and arrange so that the output of one such device leads
into the input of the other, and then repeat the output of the latter into the
input of the first. A closed loop.
For, science requires repeatability, and if you can get someone else to repeat
what you have done, independently, then that shows something.
*** The same argument made by gentlemen on Fido Science. And it was reproduced
and the exact same suggestions were made with regard to putting it into a
closed loop. That is what the new dream "from my aliens" showed me how to
do with a great deal less expense than my own ideas. I have not pursued
this with Mr. Silverman because I had given up by then. It was the new
dream about the 'flapper' which brought me bck to life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-04,13:03
From: ISRAEL SILVERMAN
To: BRIAN WHATCOTT
Subject: Harris Device 1/2
BW> Stewart, I believe you have given a moderate and up front account of
BW> your interesting machine.
BW> You have never claimed perpetual motion for it, nor even long
BW> continued action.
But because a closed loop could be constructed by joining output and inputs of
2 such devices, it certainly implies it.
BW> I believe I understand the operating principle of your device: I
BW> believe you provide energy in placing the runner into its
BW> energetically favorable starting position.
BW> You can easily test for this initial repulsion that must be overcome.
BW> You probably cannot even FEEL the force you are providing - a basis
BW> for your puzzlement, I'm sure.
BW> But if you will suspend the runner on two long threads of cotton, say
BW> 24 inches long each, and GRADUALLY approach the runner to its starting
BW> position on the track, you will find that the runner pushes back from
BW> its starting position, until it gets quite close, then it starts to
BW> pull forward. You will see the cotton suspension leans a little from
BW> the vertical.
And how owuld this initial imparting of energy carry the device over the 2
inclines?
*** Notice the interesting question by Mr. Silverman at the end. The
proposition by Mr. Whatcott was done by me many, many years ago. And this
is exactly what disproves that repulsion is not the initiating impetus.
And Mr. Silverman's question is exactly what bothers me, in that I can say
what it is, but it will not make scientists very happy. TOMI, the Theory
of Magnetic Instability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-04,15:52
From: JUDY STEIN
To: STEWART HARRIS
Subject: Harris device 1/2
SH> I tried very hard to remove my finger in a "backward movement" to
SH> avoid the impression it was being pushed.
Indeed, that's quite noticeable on the tape. Once you have the runner in
position, you lay your forefinger over the center of the runner, then release
it by drawing your finger back until it no longer contacts the runner, at
which point the runner immediately starts moving forward. It's clear your
finger is holding it back rather than pushing it forward.
*** Interesting only to head off beliefs I push the runner at the initial
point of takeoff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-04,13:03
From: ISRAEL SILVERMAN
To: KEN STUCKAS
Subject: Harris device
KS> Easy. You just ask them to tilt the camera at the same angle that the
KS> device is tilted to disguise the fact that the whole thing is going
KS> down hill.
Of course, the people standing around while the device is being operated and
moved around, since they appear to be standing straight up with respect to the
device, must have also modified the law of gravity. I don't think shifting the
device and camera will act to change the gravity vector.
KS> If you mail these tapes, now you are putting yourself in the domain
KS> the the U.S. Postal Service which has the authority to investigate
KS> mail fraud.
As you probably don't recall, he said he didn't mail often since he didn't
want to take money, and it cost him moeny to make and send.
*** Even I do not have todefend against fraud, as those who have seen the tape
will attest to my integrity.
*** What follows is a description of the NSA experiment I refer to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-04,15:56
From: JUDY STEIN
To: STEWART HARRIS
Subject: Harris device
SH> I would love for you to give a comparably lucid description on the
SH> NASA experiment which I included on that tape.
It shows a closeup view of what appear to be a series of drops of water
falling onto an inclined plane (about 10-15 degrees?), inclined from left to
right. The drops fall one by one from some kind of nozzle that's right above
the plane, close enough to it so the bottom of the drop touches the plane
before the top detaches from the nozzle.
The instant the bottom of the water drop touches the plane, it begins to move,
slowly as long as it's still attached to the nozzle, then with a burst of
speed when the top breaks free.
Then there is an edit in the film, and the camera has apparently moved
slightly to the right. We see a drop moving very slowly up the plane, then
suddenly going faster, then slower again. The nozzle is no longer in the
frame, but presumably it's *just* outside the left of the frame, so the
increase in speed is, again, what happens when the top of the drop breaks free
of the nozzle. But then after that initial acceleration, the drop slows down
again as it moves out of the frame to the right.
The drop looks a bit peculiar after it's left the nozzle; it looks like a lens
(like a football flattened longitudinally) rather than a water drop (in other
words, the bottom of the drop does not appear to lie flat on the plane but is
rather turned up at the ends, the side view making it look as though they're
pointed), but that must be a distortion of the camera view.
I can't tell how large the droplets are, so it's hard to say how fast the
drops are moving or how great a distance they travel. In the second shot, with
the nozzle out of the frame, it takes the drop about 7 seconds to move from
the left of the frame (it starts partially inside the frame) to the right and
disappear out of the frame. The motion, again, in this shot is slow-fast-slow.
The acceleration and period of top speed is only about a second.
I can't tell for sure, but it looks to me as though *just* as the drop is
disappearing out of the frame to the left, it speeds up again slightly.
If the drops are what I think of as "normal sized," i.e., what comes out of my
faucet when it's leaking drop by drop, I would guess the distance the drop in
the second camera shot traverses is maybe three-quarters of an inch or
slightly less.
'Zat what you wanted??
SH> I am changing course and trying to get a local plastic company to make
SH> the flapper. And I have a great idea for a toy: Look at the drawings
SH> of the hamster wheel. Can you imagine a track on the outside rim of
SH> the wheel, covered by decorations, with chairs suspended a la a ferris
SH> wheel?
Sounds neat. I wish I had a kid to play with it!
SH> Maybe even a large wheel using no input other than the "lifesavers." I
SH> love that, Judy. It's the most clear but most amusing description I
SH> have heard about this in 18 years.
I'm surprised nobody has come up with it so far; it seemed fairly obvious...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JUDY STEIN
To: KEN STUCKAS
Subject: Harris device
SH> I did not understand what the gentleman said myself. How can I create
SH> an optical illusion in a video studio under the eyes of commercial
SH> photographers with cardboard and scotch tape.
KS> Easy. You just ask them to tilt the camera at the same angle that the
KS> device is tilted to disguise the fact that the whole thing is going
KS> down hill. Mind giving me the phone number of the commercial
KS> photographers who made the video?
You didn't take the trouble to read any of the earlier posts describing the
device, including my detailed description, with diagrams, of what is seen in
the demo tape. Yet you're willing to accuse Stewart of possible fraud when you
don't even have a clear mental image of what it is we're talking about.
With the camera running, the box, which rests on a table, is shoved around
from one position to another so that the camera can film repetitions of the
action at all angles. To continuously adjust the tilt--not just of the box but
of the table, the walls of the room, and Stewart himself, much of whose body
is visible standing beside the table as he turns the box around and positions
the runner--to maintain the deceptive angle, you'd need a room-turning
mechanism far more elaborate and precise than that used to film Fred Astaire's
famous dance on the ceiling.
I don't know how you'd calibrate it even so, because the box is shoved around
the way you'd thrust a cereal box at your breakfast companion sitting across
the table from you. Stewart is not a dancer, and moreover he has a gross hand
tremor. And the camera is hand-held, not steady at all.
KS> yourself in the domain the the U.S. Postal Service which has the
KS> authority to investigate mail fraud.
Ken, this is just off the wall. You just breezed in for one of your infrequent
visits, and you have no idea what has been said previously. Stewart doesn't
charge for the tapes. He's telling you he only sends out tapes when he can
afford to pay for them out of his own pocket. Earlier someone offered to
reimburse him for a copy, and he flatly refused. You want a copy, get on his
list to receive it free, but it seems there are a few folks ahead of you.
You owe him an abject apology. On several different counts.
KS> same angle to make the device appear level with the intent to decieve
KS> others, then that's fraud.
What if it's not going downhill?
*** Mr. Stuckas and many others worry about Mr. Silverman's question quite a
bit. It is just this which makes me go on. Otherwise, I would not bother
any longer.
SH> As to how long it will continue to operate, I don't know.
KS> It will operate for exactly one cycle unless you are being
KS> deliberately deceptive.
In the demo, it operates for two cycles (which is all the demo device has on
it). Stewart is referring to how many two-cycle runs it will do over time.
There are something like 15 or 20 on the demo tape.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: RON FREIMUTH
To: JUDY STEIN
Subject: Harris Device
RF> Do you know what magnetic material is in the runner?
JS> They're flat circular magnets with a hole in the middle,
> strung on the runner's "axle" like a roll of Lifesavers. Stewart said
> elsewhere these magnets are available at Radio-Shack. Looks like
Yeah, got that from Brian, too.
This means the runner can be attracted or repelled by other magnets. One
effect is that the hills can be effectively moved zerbelow o height, as far as
potential energy goes.
One needs put only enough energy into the system to overcome friction.
*** This post caused me to wonder what happened to overcoming the force of
gravity going up the declines?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-18,18:31
From: BRIAN WHATCOTT
To: RON FREIMUTH
Subject: Harris Device 1/2
RF> OK, I wasn't aware the runner had magnets. Bet one has to supply work
RF> to get it in position. The energy then runs the device through
Interesting: he said that if you approach the track at more than 45 degrees
from above, you don't see repulsion. I guess that maximum repulsion is felt
from 45 degrees low....
*** Here is the crux of the 'flapper.' There is no repulsive effect above 45
degrees, not low. And the work supplied to get it into position is gravity
at work. Then, since gravity is not a source of energy, and the magnets
are doing all the work, there is no new input. If you consider gravity a
source of energy, then COE is shoved out the window. It is a paradox which
needs answering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JIM GOODMAN
To: BRIAN WHATCOTT
Subject: Maglev Devices
BW> (Believe it or not, there are no known perpetual motion machines.
BW> Sorry!)
shucks, you caught me stirring the pot. I don't believe that Stewart Harris
has designed a pmm either, but he may have found another force. I'm betting on
some magnetic like force. see the Newman device discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-22,09:51
From: JIM GOODMAN
To: JUDY STEIN
Subject: MAGLEV DEVICES
[Harris device]
JS> I'm not really even all that clear on what the *problem* is with it.
tanstaafl:there ain't no such thing as a free lunch
this means that there is no perpetual motion machine. something has to power
it. I'm interested in finding out what (force) makes the device run. Nobody
believes that a static magnet will make a mass speed up slightly,
indefinitely. a magnet will reduce friction (meglev), but not power anything.
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-07-29,09:25
From: BRIAN WHATCOTT
To: JIM GOODMAN
Subject: Maglev Devices
JG> following a magnetic track is simple. But both Harris and Newman have
JG> reported the device operates indefinitely. It is a source of energy.
JG> The
As far as I could see, Stewart NEVER claimed his machine operated
'indefinitely'.
My understanding is, he claimed
1) His machine operated 'repeatedly' over an extended period of years, with no
loss of vigor over the one two or three 'hills' he arranged.
2) When arranged in a circle, his runner on rare occasions could reach and
pass its starting point.
3) He hoped that by suitably transporting the runner back to its start
position, he could make the action repetitive ( a surely forlorn hope...)
*** Notice the lament. It is catching. I really don't want to even present the
evidence, since it will disrupt so many people from their lifetime
beliefs. It is not worth it at all to create disruption. I was proud of
this in one sense: no pollution and no possible harm to people. It does
not seem that that is true any longer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1994-08-02,16:47
From: BRIAN WHATCOTT
To: JIM GOODMAN
Subject: Maglev Devices
JG> crosses the surface. I guess that the surface did not enclose all of
JG> the energy sources (sun) that the Harris device uses. Therefore the
JG> system is open and all bets are off. One of the sources of energy from
JG> the sun is a pumped magnetic field.
I postulate that the resistance that the runner encounters on approaching the
start of the track is the source of its motive power.
*** Another iteration of the standard objection. But the 'flapper' does not
run the runner in a position where it ever encounters resistance or
'repulsion.' Eliminating that is the purpose of the 'flapper.' Then what
comes next. I only offer this as references for answer which will come if
I put the 'flapper' into public view.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
I hope this has been of some help and will answer some of your questions as to
what it is and why I no longer go on any science echos.
The 'flapper' has existed. I make that clear. It was destroyed twice. Once in
cardboard version; once in Tinkertoy version. A new one is being built in
sturdy plastic, which should be able to resist the violent forces at work.
The increase in force is due to removing the wheels as explained in the
description of the demo, then placing the runner in an enclosed container, but
which allows it it move from one end to the other freely; and then bringing
the container closer to the tracks. Al this combines to increase the speed
geometrically, it seems, until it very hard to catch the movement of the
runner.
This is one source of the violence, when it climbs the incline of the seesaw
with the weight shifting from the low apex to the top. Of necessity, it must
be stopped and that meant it is locked in and hits the end of the container
every time it climbs of the incline. The acceleration is tremendous and it
hits that wall with quite a bit of force. It knocked the ends off my cardboard
model and simply shot out the tube/container.
Then there is the downward swing of the pendulum which brings the mass back
into the influence of the track without that famous passage through any
repulsion field or resistance field which is alleged to be the energy input.
When it does enter the track, try to envision a change in direction:
\
___\
which is quite radical and necessitates the entire frame be very, very sturdy
and rigid. (It is ironic that the device is subject to such tremendous forces
which seem to be destructive, when at the same time scientists claim it is
losing so much energy that it will stop. If it stops, it will be because of a
buildup of force rather than a depletion, I believe.)
Well, this is it, the total of what I can get out. I hope it helps you. I have
asked my sysop to pick up I-UFO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: Stewart.harris@charleston.com
1100 Dumont Blvd. #115, Las Vegas, NV 89109 (702) 792-9326
Stand and Deliver! Or on your knees! Take your choice!
* Origin: * Vegas PlayGround! * 23 Nodes * (702)386-7979 * (1:209/276)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink