______________________________________________________________________________ | 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) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------