No he is not, but you'll see why he may seem that way in his
messages that follow. I've even posted the messages here
earlier this year, check the archives. I've never
understood why people have not tried his simple original
device, bassed on his original messages.
Actually I was down in my basment last night building up one
of his 'Flappers'. Was making it out of 1/2" PVC pipe, and
PCV Tees, and a 5/16" Dowl Rod. Because this is what I had
on hand. Can't say if it works or not yet, as I need to
pick up a few more magnets. I've been frustranted that no
one in over four years has never even tried to duplicate HIS
ORIGINAL WORK, so I thought I'd give it a shot myself, even
tho I'm a mechanical clutz.
Here are his ORIGINAL messages, where he describes his self
running unites:
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 05:08:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Harris <PATHARRIS@delphi.com> [This email address no longer works]
Subject: PatHarris Device
To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com
On 3-OCT-1995 03:07:26.1 freenrg-list said to PATHARRIS
>>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.
>I'm not quite clear on what is happening here. If this
>device continues to move back and forth, or will go over
>many, many "hills" of the same height, then it is very
>important. If it does, then consider a book before somebody
>else writes one on it. (And all of the organizations into
>this kind of thing out there will sell it for you).
What you read above was a description of my device as seen on a
videotape I sent to Judy Stein in NYC about 14, 15 months ago.
It was first put out in November of 1993, and reproduced by two
gentlemen in December of 1993. Although my original demo simply
goes up and down two hills, one of the gentleman went to four
inclines, and there is really not limit, since, once a runner is
introduced into the track, it will climb the incline. My demo
uses the same magnets it used 20 years ago.
The height of the hills or inclines are identical, and they
accelerate up the hill, as they enter each new hill.
>But also, a movie of it on the web would help you sell a
>book. I have a source now for turning a video into a .avi
>file for the web. I can't think of a more exciting first use
>of that equipment and software. So I'd like to try to talk
>you into sending a video of it, and I can attach the .avi
>file to an email message to you, for your website if you have
>one. And I would ask that you let me put the video on my site
>also.
Cannot write a book. I am not a scientist; and if you read the
bad news, you would realize I am concerned about the source more
than I am the product or its promotion. Besides, it has been
stated it violates some laws of physics and I have been through
enough of that over the past two years. You see, other than the
information I get in dreams, I haven't the slightest idea of what
is happening.
I stopped sending out videotapes in the hopes that someone else
would come up with something.
So far, no dice. Here, and for others, is what is being sent out
in order for others to build and experiment with their on TOMI
device.
CONSTRUCTION
------------
To construct your own TOMI (Theory Of Magnetic Instability) device;
1) For the ONE ramp test
Buy 30 circular magnets (with the hole in the middle) from Radio
Shack, these cost $1.69 for 5 magnets, so the magnets will cost
about $10.00
For the TWO ramp test
Buy 50 circular magnets (with the hole in the middle) from Radio
Shack, about $17.00
2) Take some stiff cardboard and make two hills (each hill consists of an
incline and a decline, experiment with the angle, about 30 degrees)
3) Make three rolls (or five rolls if you are using 2 ramps) of 10
magnets each (connect the magnets to form 10 magnet stacks, kind of
like a roll of Lifesavers
4) Tape these magnets together with scotch tape
5) The ones for the side of the ramps are called RUNNERS, one other 10
magnet roll is used as the ROLLER that moves up the incline between
the RUNNERS
4) On each ramp (incline), you attach one roll of magnets running up each
side, so that's two magnet rolls per incline and NONE on the decline
5) The RUNNER magnets on the sides should arranged to be of opposite
polarity, that is, North at the top on one side, South at the top on
the opposite side
6) The ROLLER should be placed at the base of the ramp with its poles
facing like poles on the RUNNERS, since LIKE magnetic poles REPEL,
this will provide the repulsion you require to make the ROLLER move up
the incline between the RUNNERS.
The Pole arrangement should look like this:
N S
| |
| |
| |
| |
S S---------N N
Each successive track set and runner should conform to the above
configuration and you line them up!
The best results will be obtained if you put a strip of cardboard
across the back of the first track. Then you simply set the
runner onto the track at the base of the incline, see that it is
lined up and let it go.
Be sure that the runner is close to the tracks on both sides. If
you wish, you can get little medicine bottle caps, the kind with
rotating tops, and glue the magnets inside of each cap. Then you
have wheels and you can change the width of the runner all you
like.
Pat Harris
*****************
Now it is up to your own ingenuity to simply figure what makes it
work. If you like to test something and wish to waste some
money, then buy two bar magnets and replace the runner sides in
the above description. When this fails, you can then figure out
why.
Then you can take photos and show your own.
Since I am not a scientist and a little flaky with my ideas of
where this comes from, it is probably best that someone else does
write the book.
Regards,
Pat
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 22:02:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Harris <PATHARRIS@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: Devices?
To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com
On 20-OCT-1995 11:22:45.2 freenrg-list said to PATHARRIS
>I have buit the TOMI device, several sizes and several
>forms.. I have also built several forms of circular TOMI's
>and have discovered an interesting phenomena that occurs with
>the magnets arranged in a circular pattern.
I think you are making the same mistake most have made. You wish
to make the track 'hot' instead of the 'vehicle.'
Most people I have read on this subject seem to be hooked on the
circular flat track, or even in straight linear tracks. I stated
a long time ago when I put out the basic TOMI concept and demo
that I had created a circular track and in 200 attempts at
circumnavigation, I had succeeded twice. It was most a
construction problem. But from a strict common-sense viewpoint,
to make the circular track itself the drive or motor is much the
same as stringing wires for the old trolley cars. The answers
was simply to make the trolley car with a built-in motor.
Let us go with a simple fact. My TOMI, now 20 years old, still
the same magnets I bought 20 years ago, has never failed to lift
the runner in the same predictable manner all during that period
of time. I also had other demos which suspended a mass, the
least being suspended for 10 years.
So a conclusion can be made, despite your suspicions, that every
time a runner is introduced into the track, it will lift the
runner in the same predicatble manner for a very long time.
After 20 years it is still lifting the same runner to the same
heights.
Then may I suggest that you turn your thinking toward
implementing a version of CM (continuous motion) which uses only
a single incline. Cheaper, fewer magnets, less construction.
What you have to work with is a method to get a mass to a height.
I have spoken to many engineers and they all state that once you
have a mass to a height, is pure engineering to put that mass to
work!
So the only problem would seem to be to get the mass back to the
base of the incline after it accomplishes some work, moves
something, whatever. (In the beginning, it would seem sufficient
to simply demonstrate CM.)
B
/
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
A / |
D ------------ C
Follow: When you inserted the runner into the system at A, has
it ever failed to rise to B and then descend? My own personal
experience of 20 years: NO!
In the process of moving from B to C, I doubt there is any
question that some work can be accomplished. After all, this is
the simple concept of a piledriver.
All you have to do is figure out how to get the mass from C to D,
back into the system of the single track, and Voila! You have
CM!
What is so difficult about that?
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 15:22:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Harris <PATHARRIS@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: Devices?
To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com
On 21-OCT-1995 13:18:46.0 freenrg-list said to PATHARRIS
>I think perhaps my mailer swallowed a piece of mail of mine,
>because no one responded when I wrote a fairly lengthy post
>(for me) detailing a simple way to test Pat Harris' device
>for energy conservation.
Your reader must have swallowed my reply to your first message.
>Those readers who have constructed ramps might therefore try the
>following scheme: enclose Pat Harris' ramps in 2 larger ramps thusly:
>\ /
>\ /
>\ /
>\ /
>\ /
>\_______/\/\______/
>Those two lumps in the middle are Harris' ramps.
>Let the runner start from way high and FAR AWAY from the
>magnetic fields of Harris' ramps. See how high the runner
>makes it up the second ramp.
In my reply, I asked why you would do this? You would have to use
some other mechanism to get the runner to the 'way high and FAR
AWAY from the magnetic fields." In this case you would be
injecting a tremendous amount of energy into the system from the
PE of the runner very high!
Why not deal with what exists. You are adding and changing the
entire concept.
If you are seeking CM, a single ranp is sufficient, and it does
not need your 'push' from on high and far away. Why require what
has already been eliminated. Sounds like a typical 'make-work
bureaucratic' approach.
>Conventional physics predicts the runner will not rise any
>higher than the height at which it was released.
Conventional physics says the runner will not rise higher that
the height at which it was released?
/\ /\
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
________o / \/ \
Then conventional physics would predict, that since the mass is
released from ground zero, so to speak, it should not rise
higher than ground zero. You have to get over the reality that
that is no longer true first.
I cannot comprehend how you can say what you say and ignore the
above. Or are you aware of what is happening?
And I think this is a search for free energy or o-u for the
moment. No one has spoken about generators yet, although they
are not far away.
>Let's cut to the chase and see if there's anything
>interesting about this arrangement of magnets before getting
>lost in attempting to apply this "effect" for generators and
>such.
Charles,
Interesting to whom?
I was here to offer information. I will stop that if you do not
find it intersting. I think I shall stop anyway. You are
convinced this is not worth anything, which suits me just fine.
Pat
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 17:58:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Harris <PATHARRIS@delphi.com>
Subject: TOMI test
On 21-OCT-1995 15:00:20.3 freenrg-list said to PATHARRIS
>At 10:02 PM 10/20/95, Pat Harris wrote:
>> B
>> /
>> / |
>> / |
>> / |
>> / |
>> A / |
>> D ------------ C
>>
>>All you have to do is figure out how to get the mass from C to D,
>>back into the system of the single track, and Voila! You have
>>CM!
>>
>>What is so difficult about that?
>Perhaps we shall see, Pat. Thank you for reducing the
>question to a very simple form. Despite my inclinations, I
>will endeavor to study this problem soon...because my
>"inclinations" just might be wrong.
Well, have fun.
I will give you one more clue for when 'soon' arrives. But
progress will depend upon your inclinations, of course.
B
X /
/
/
/
o
/ |
/ |
/ |
0/ |
A |
D | C
__________________________________
'o' is an axle, a pivot point.
Mass '0' is moved from 'A' to 'B.' What do you think happens then?
Is it just possible, despite all your inclinations to the
contrary, that mass '0' could move toward 'C,' then 'D,' then
back to 'A'?
And upon reentering the track at 'A,' do you really believe that,
because it went up the incline once before, it will not climb the
incline again?
the Law of Conservation of Energy says that the kinetic energy of
the movement of the mass up the incline is converted to PE at the
upper apex. The law of equilibrium would seem to dictate the arm
pivoting and swinging like a pendulum. The law of the swing for
pendulum, in the configuration above, guarantees the heavier end
will swing to a point just below the original height of initial
high point, to 'X'
As you can see, this is more than sufficient for the mass to
return to the base of the incline, whether it is designed to stop
it in the track on the upswing or on the downswing.
And you are perfectly correct. Whatever gets the mass back into
the track at the low point is a mechanical function.
This is the 'Flapper.' It will demonstrate CM, but it has a flaw
in my view. It must be set in the first instance, and any torque
which would stop it would also dictate it be reset.
In my view, 'Continuous Motion is merely continuous instability.'
In order for any machine to operate in a manner in which torque
can stop it, and then it restart on its own, the entire system
must be in a continuous state of instability. In other words, it
can be stopped to allow some resistive force to function and do
work; but when that resistive back torque, so to speak, go below
the motive torque of the machine, it must resume motion. This
can only occur if, when it was stopped, it was in a state of
instability under normal torque.
The Hamster Cage is a more expensive version, but you can stop it
with resistive torque, but because the hamster cannot find
stability at a lower apex, it must always be in such a position
as to cause imbalance, instability in the cage. There are
several othe techniques to achieve the same effect.
If you take the hamster cage off the axle and put it on a track,
it will roll around a track, giving you your precious horizontal
circumnavigation, and without inclines, a flat track.
I had hoped most of you scientists and engineers would figure
this all out, but it seems to be the 'inclination' to simply say
it cannot be done.
This indicates, also, that in my present condition, it is a waste
of what time I have left to remain. [He left, and this is
why some think he is secritive. Nope, just frustrated.]
Regards,
Pat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Any one going to build his self running Flapper THIS TIME?
Sorry, my fruststration is showing...
Hook the hampstercage up to a Eckinator, no back torq (so
I've been told)...
-- For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.biogate.com/bpaddock/Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief