Work from 2 magnets > 19% output 2

[lumen]

I think that your circular configuration would be easier to build, and easier to analyze.
The "stator" magnet must do 4 revolutions for each revolution of the rotor. If you just can find a way to calculate or simulate the energy required to rotate the stator 4 times and simulate the energy provided by the rotor for one revolution. Maxwell 3D can maybe do this?
I imagine that the stator will constantly counterforce as there is no place to "rest", and it is rotating 4 times faster than the rotor. So I am wondering if it is possible to determine in which direction the rotor will go if we look at how much displacement there is involved vs. torque...


Vidar

Floor's design might work or might work even better if the rotor was a smaller diameter to increase leverage.
I feel that if in fact some gain can be achieved in magnetic interaction, then the reason for it needs to be determined in order to build a useful machine.

At this time, it seems to me that the part of the interaction that is detrimental is the attraction part. So far it appears that gain only comes from a neutral position to a repelling position and that once in full attraction one can never achieve a gain from that position.

To do software testing on a design even as simple as floor's rotary design involves many magnets and many steps which would take days to calculate even with a script making the moves.
It's usually easier and faster to build a device to test it but the reason why the device should work needs to be known first.

But you never know, it could just work! 

[Floor]

I'll clarify my position.

I have as of this point in time, built 3 different measuring devices, in order to test if indeed there is a difference in

the work required to separate two magnets in attraction by rotation
.....and
the work to  separate those magnets by directly pulling them apart.

The question I at first had in mind was ...  did it only appear to be easier to twist them apart, due to the mechanics of human hands, wrists and so on ? or was there actually a  difference.

The  first of my three devices could only measure the peak forces of each of these two scenarios.   
The difference in those peak values was   > 19% .  Hence the name of this topic.

The second device was a modification of the first device which allowed measurements of the varied force (as weight applied)  at increments of distance.

After a series of blunders  due to my lack of  understanding of

the process of integrating a changing force over distance,
     and
also incorrect interpretation of graphs of those forces.

I hit the books.  Things are very different at this time, my knowledge base has expanded very considerably.
..............................
Additionally, I now have an accurate device (device number 3) for making those measurements.

The SL work is more than  173%  greater than  RO not merely  19% ... I have no doubt of this, as  I have measured and pondered this many times now.  I also understand that this is basically unbelievable.

As to, is this is possible or  not  and   how could  it possibly work, 

                          I CARE NOT EVEN ONE TINY BIT at his point in time.

As to whether others should  believe my claims ?  No... I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD.  I DO think they should see for their selves.   If my presentations have been inadequate toward the goal of inspiring others to that end, I do apologize.

If the reader realizes that his skills and or resources are inadequate to the task, that's  ok.. 

But If you cannot do muster excellence,  in either confirmation or refutation of my findings, is would be far far better just to stay out of the way.  I do a good enough job of cluttering up the topic with out any ones help.

                                 best wishes
                                            floor

[Low-Q]

The question I at first had in mind was ...  did it only appear to be easier to twist them apart, due to the mechanics of human hands, wrists and so on ? or was there actually a  difference.[/size]

This is exactly why we cannot trust our hand. The twist require less force, but on the other hand it also require more displacement to achieve a full separation.
Peak values are not interesting. It is the average values vs. displacement that is interesting to analyze.
Since the forces change during the operation, it is needed to be taken as many samples as possible.


I can agree with you in your previous post that actually building this device is much easier. If it works, it should work. If not, we need no more testing or tweaking.
Magnets are conservative, and should by their nature not be able to perform work. There is "always" a catch in magnet motor designs that the inventor didn't think of at first.


If theory and practice doesn't add up, we must throw away the theory - just like the theory of global warming that doesn't add upp with actual reason for global warming (except that the global warming theory cost too much prestige, money and column inches to throw away).


Vidar

[triffid]

test,just wanted a link back to this thread.triffid

[lumen]

@floor
I was wondering if your increase in gain was related to notching the magnet in your last setup?