Proof of Overunity From Magnets Fixture, No Negative Work Aspect, LaFonte

[gammarayburst]

Norman, you should try testing this with metal on both ends of the magnet so that friction is taken out of the equation. So forces on the magnet are equal but opposite and the magnet is in a floating state. I feel 90% or more of what your having to overcome is friction or rolling resistance due to the car being pulled down so hard to the metal. I wonder if the best way to test this might be the way they test to find the mass of something by eliminating the effect of gravity on it. They do it by using a pendulum that is turned parallel to the earth's surface. That way only mass effects are seen.
It would the perfect way to test this. Or you could use a double arm pendulum between two metal disks to take the side load off the pendulum bearing. I feel the ratio will be in the end about 1 to 500. No grease or grease seals should be in the bearings, just clean metal. A home made pen points bearing would work best.
Butch

[gammarayburst]

See attached

[norman6538]

Butch that is a good testing idea but I'm not worried about the friction. I am worried about
the work done by the switching. In my test numbers for example. Lets say it takes 20 gram
inches to make it move 1 inch switching the magnetic field off or on times 2. That means we have to make at least 40 gram inches of work to have OU. It sounds like you have improvements that would make the switching far less than 40 gram inches. But in my
simple case it would be better to have 80 gram
inches of work done by the magnets switched on and off. This is the clear and simple challenge with you idea. The right test will demonstrate that.

I have made many embodiments of magnetic and gravity switching that worked perfectly but the switching did not supply sufficient work done to exceed the switching work required.
I have been there many times and got stuck at the "sticky point".
My only claim to fame is my pendulum that goes higher than its dropped point here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74


I say it this way. "If we can use a small force to switch a larger force then we have OU".


Norman

[gammarayburst]

Well that is what we are doing, using a very small amount of work to allow the magnets to do a very large amount of work.
It's self evident it works I feel.
Butch

[lumen]

@Butch,

It looks like this concept might work to build a magnetic Stirling  engine.

It's probably not necessary to move the magnet all the way back to the start. After a few inches down the steel it should once again attract.
It could be cycled like a Stirling engine, the steel moves together in attraction with one magnet, then the other magnet slides close, then the steel and the sliding magnet move away in repel completing the cycle.
I've done some work on your design a while back with this concept and it does show promise. In fact, if you first let only the steel move, it will push itself partially off the magnet and increase the overall repelling effect by a large factor, then the magnet will pull themselves back onto the steel later on in the cycle.