Work from 2 magnets > 19% output 2

[Floor]

Below are some photos of the rotating (RO) module as of
yesterday's progress with the build.  The biggest parts of
the build are now completed.

                    floor

[Floor]

During the 8,890 views of this topic's current incarnation, there have been no suggestions, recommendations and / or input on how one might best proceed.  No critical reviews given due to an examination of the materials . No examination of and reporting of errors found within the measurement process or the graphs or of the mathematical processes used to determine the experiments outcome.

There was ONE single suggestion that the input and the output conditions during the measurements MUST be different.  While this suggestion is a very good / likely answer to the problem of the impossible having been done. This was not I think, a conclusion reached through an examination of the materials.  It was perhaps rather the automatic response of a conditioned mind to the probability of,  easy pickens.  Had that input been knowledgeable and / or more critical and examining of the actual materials presented, that person might have pointed out my error in my method of determining the "work done" during the magnet interactions.  Oh well.

It appears to me that the input, output and two reset motions of the operation, will return a net gain of zero when the measurements are again made, but upon my new measuring device.  This however remains to be seen.  If this is the case It will help to determine both the precision and accuracy of the new device.  Or it it will show O.U.....(insert laughing emoticon here).

Below are some new totals / graphs of measurements made with the original "TD" unit
and some photos of the completed "new TD" measuring device.  The *.OUT files are
simple text files and can be opened with any text / word processor

              best wishes
                           floor

[lumen]

It's possible that this effect is from the ceramic magnets partial demagnetization during field compression.

When ceramic magnets face a neo, the pressure reaches a point then collapses causing demagnetizing of the ceramic magnet. But when two ceramic magnets face each other there is no demagnetizing but the field still partially collapses.

Once the magnets are separated the magnetic regions that were rotated return to their original state by the remaining unaffected area of the magnets.
This means the fields would collapse quickly over the short inline stroke but over the longer rotating output stroke the fields would return and provide an increase in force over the longer distance which would explain the difference you note.

Neo's will not exhibit this effect because no demagnetizing takes place with field compression.

That's my best effort to explain your results.

[Floor]

@ Lumen

QUOTE FROM LUMEN
"But when two ceramic magnets face each other there is no demagnetizing but the field still partially collapses. "  END QUOTE

A partial and / or temporary reversal of some of the magnetic domains within the ceramic magnets and said domains returning to their original orientations in the absents of the other field ?

Also, I agree that neos will probably behave differently. I'll try them in the future.

Interesting possible explanation,

however, I want to make it perfectly clear that.....

The RO graph has a TOTAL area of 301.8.  This number represents the TOTAL area within that RO graph.  This does not correctly represent the work out by the rotating motion.

The SL graph has a TOTAL area 229.41.  This number represents the TOTAL area within that SL graph.  Neither does this correctly represent the work in by the sliding motion.

An area of "337 for RO" and  of "379 for SL" are the values of those parts of those graphs which actually represent the work  by rotation (337) and work of (379) by sliding. 

These two values have a completely different ratio to one another, than  the TOTAL areas do to one another.  In fact in the first set RO is greater than SL, while in the second set SL is the greater.   

Stating that the total area of each graph was representative of the work present was a mistake  on my part.

                          still learning
                          kind regards
                              Floor

[lumen]

Sorry, I was only looking at the graph and not the new area numbers.
Even so, there is a difference and it is likely due to some domain tilting or reversal within the magnets.

Suppose it's easier to tilt the domains while rotating into position than a more random twisting you might get with a straight on compression.
In either case one might believe it to be an anomaly in the magnet material rather than the process but even the process itself might imply that compressing the field straight on would take more work than forcing the field in a direction 90 degrees to the face.

There might also be some relationship in the magnet shape or proportion where a change in the magnet shape might result in an even greater variation.