Work from 2 magnets > 19% output 2

[norman6538]

19% OU is small. I have several permanent magnet setups that give 100% OU but then
the problem is to reset so another cycle can be done and from all I have seen it takes
about 200% OU to get into a self running cycle. I did work with this idea of 2 magnets
side by side and twisting so I'll reconsider this now.  Thanks for showing the ideas.

Norman

[Floor]

@ Norman6538

Are you you in contact with GammaRayBurst these days ?

The twist drive shows 19.131% O.U.  AFTER and INCLUDEING reset to the
starting position.  This is a measurement result... not a theoretical / calculation.
But does not include losses to.... friction and 2 motion reset springs.

Before reset the joules in to joules out ratio is (209 input to 301 out put).
This reduces to about 31% (if  I'm remembering correctly)

Full cycling requires only the attachment of 2 light springs to the unit
to cause the return / reset strokes.

Cascading of and / or full circle cycling between multiple units is possible.  I'd
do a video if this were proof... but its not.  Instead I'm challenging any one,
to prove this wrong. 

                  Floor

[Floor]

@ Norman 6538

Input was 76.01% of output before return / reset strokes.
100 /301.8 = 0.3313,  0.3313 x 229.41= 76.01 %.

Output was 131.5 % of input before return / reset strokes.
100 / 229.41 = 0.4359, 0.4359 x 301.8 = 131.55 %.
...................................
Output minus input minus combined return / reset strokes = 43.89.
301.8 - 229.41 - 28.5 = 43.89 (total gain after return strokes).

Total gain was 19.131 % of  input, after return / reset strokes.
100 / 229.41 = 0.4359, 0.4359 x 43.89 = 19.13168 %

Output was 119.131 % greater than input, after return / reset strokes.

19.131 % is a conservative figure.

Several factors in the measurements were fudged toward more
conservative values during measurements.   This was to insure
that any (my own) personal bias in favor of an O.U. out come
might be neutralized.

As one example, there is a great deal of / constant friction present during
the rotational return stroke measurement.  This is due to a design flaw in
the measuring device, which causes levering upon the bearing by the shaft.
This levering, in turn causes the RO return stroke to require more input than
could realistically have been achieved if using a better bearing / shaft design.
As a result, the graph (grams x displacement for RO return), is probably
representative of about twice the work actually required for that motion.

                                       Floor

[LibreEnergia]

So you're prepared to state that your device is OU to 5 signifcant digits but the apparatus is probably 'only half' as accurate as it could be..  Sounds like a recipe for 100% BS to me. I would say your measurements are not accurate enough to make any such claims. Equally likely is that the starting and ending conditions of each set of measurememts are not identical and thus do no represent the energy balance around a full cycle, as would be required to prove OU.

[Floor]

@LibreEnergia


Quote
"So you're prepared to state that your device is OU to 5 significant digits but the apparatus is probably 'only half' as accurate as it could be.. "
.............
Use of more than 3 significant digits in the explanations is just my habit.  I have already stated this in the PDF files.

I'm prepared to state that the device and measurements show >19% more work out than in, in just the way I stated this in the files
presented.

The measureing device is probably only accurate to around 0.025.
.............
.............
Quote
"Sounds like a recipe for 100% BS to me. " 
.............
.............
No coment, except that Im willing to discuss it.  That is why I have posted the work here.
.............
Quote
"I would say your measurements are not accurate enough to make any such claims. "
.............
.............
I would say that they are accurate enough to make the claims.
.............
Quote
"Equally likely is that the starting and ending conditions of each set of measurements are not identical and thus do no represent the energy balance around a full cycle, as would be required to prove OU."
.............
.............
Likey yes, however they are "identical" except as detailed in the doucuments

I would very much like hear your views on this matter as well.  The starting and ending conditions are explained in great detail in the files.

I'm very much interested in well stated / accurate criticism.  This is a critical part of the process I am looking for.


                             I hope you will have / post  more observations / criticisms / advice
                             Thanks for input input
                                            Floor