New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)

[lumen]

"Work" is essentially the area under the graph (the integral of the graph or curve). One would have to write grams as kilos and millimetres as meter and to multiply the whole with "G = 9.81". But this would just alter the aspect ratio and not the comparison Floor is interested in.

If (a < b) then (a*c < b*c) as long as c is a positive constant.

Greetings, Conrad

Yes I can agree.
Though the entire test should be repeated with another test fixture of better precision (no knocks about the proto test device) to rule out any errors and to determine energy gained to see if a useful machine can be built.

The process appears too simple to be missed in the many years of testing magnetic fields so one naturally wonders where the error lies if any.

[Floor]

@ lumen

Thanks for the response / interest / posts

Yes I agree the concept seems to simple to have been missed by so many years of testing.

@AllReaders

I am putting together a list of error checking procedures.

Allso please find attached the PDF file "TD Graph totals"

                                          Cheers
                                                Floor

[Floor]

@ All Readers

[Floor]

One more

[conradelektro]

@Floor:

Your measurements, the photos and of course your machine are so exceptionally well done that I will try to redo your graphs in Microsoft Excel. Just to see that everything checks out (which probably will).

But it will take time, because it is not my main area of interest.

Friction is difficult to measure and I am not sure how to put friction into the calculation. Possible effects of vibrating the machine are also not clear to me. These are interesting technical problems. 10% measurement error in a mechanical contraption is not much according to my unimportant opinion. Theoretically a very small COP, e.g. 1.1 or even 1.0001 , would be enough to proof OU, but practically speaking, one will always be accused of not having measured accurately enough.

Floor, what you could do is to clearly name the different "strokes" or "steps" which your machine does and to define the order in which the "strokes" should happen. This would help to talk about it. I see four "strokes" or "steps".

I tried to list the four strokes in this post
http://www.overunity.com/13699/new-perm-mag-engine-design-1-5-1-ratio-work-from-magnets/msg369721/#msg369721


The optimum presentation would be:

________________________________________________

For each "stroke"
- name of the stroke (e.g. "stroke 1" or "stroke A")
- a drawing or photo with arrows indicating the movement
- the measurements (a list)
- a graph

For each friction measurement:
- name of the stroke during which the measured friction happens
- the friction measurements (a list)
- a graph

Then the order in which the strokes should happen (may be a simple diagram).

A discussion of the result (by help of overlaid graphs)
________________________________________________


I am not ordering you to do this, it is just what I would do in order to interest other people in this principle. Presentation is very important if you want to have an audience. Everything is already in the files you published in this thread, but the reader needs a huge effort to piece everything together. And not many will make the effort. You may also want to present your results elsewhere (in a journal or at a convention) and then you also need a nice presentation.

I am also of the opinion, that it is good to have more machines (in different sizes), not just one. It always happens that the only existing machine fails when presented, which is a bummer. It is also very convincing if two or three machines show in principle the same results. I know it is a lot of work. It all depends on how much of your time you want to put into this idea. The costs do not seem to be very high (if a few hundred Euros are not a problem). And it is an interesting idea, even if it is not OU.

Greetings, Conrad