Work from 2 magnets > 19% output 2

[Floor]

@lumen

Thank you for all your efforts.
My hope is that you can find the time for a replication.

I have been looking for some one willing to do a replication for what seem a long time now.
One replication might lead to many others, and (a real body of evidence, for or against).

         best wishes
                      floor

[Low-Q]

@Floor


Is it any way to make your design small? I would like to make a try building it with small neo-magnets. I have different sizes and shapes. What shape would you prefer?
Maybe some sort of building instructions would be nice.


Vidar

[Floor]

@Low-Q

For starters, and for verification purposes, inexspensive ceramic magnets shoulkd be used.
Also, the magnets ,should be as nearly identicle to those used in my device as is possible.
The magnets I have used were aboyt $ 2 (US).

I have been developing an easy to build design, and I'll let you know as that design progresses.

             floor

[Low-Q]

@Low-Q

For starters, and for verification purposes, inexspensive ceramic magnets shoulkd be used.
Also, the magnets ,should be as nearly identicle to those used in my device as is possible.
The magnets I have used were aboyt $ 2 (US).

I have been developing an easy to build design, and I'll let you know as that design progresses.

             floor

Cheap magnets are great for starters. However, all the friction you might have in the system is like noise. A weak signal covered by noise, is very hard to analyze correctly. If you use stronger magnets, the experiment is easier to analyze as you suppress the noise using a stronger "signal".
As a temporary solution, you might even use electromagnets running on AC to generate a stronger magnetic field.
I know AC will change polarity 50 or 60 times per second, but the same happens to both electro magnets at the same time.
So the experiment would probably be a better success in terms of analyzing.


Vidar

[lumen]

Hi Vidar

I used neo's 1/8 x 1/2 x 1-1/2 in the simulator because I have these exact magnets to do the real test.
I also think the reason for the gain is understandable in both floor's design and the way I used them which is a bit different.

Take the case of floor's design in which the poles are on the sides and when rotated parallel both poles are pushing. But when they come together as a cross at 90 degrees to each other, there is almost no repulsion.

The cause of the gain is because the cross position allows a connection of the poles that assist the rotation towards the repelling position even though it's in fact resisting that direction and would move away into the aligned attract position, there is still an assist that is easily seen in FEMM field lines.

This assist allows the magnets to rotate into position with less energy. In floor's layout the assist only helps up to about 30 degrees from the parallel or full repelling position because the thickness of the magnets prevent further assisting.

Of course this is only a theory but there is some logic to it once you see it.