Magnets, motion and measurement

[Floor]

It gets stranger

Ideal body = sphere  to square body

Mono - versus dipol

Inside/outside versus N/S
Physics is based by geometrical and arithmetical thinking : RAUM/SPACE - ZEIT/TIME
Gauss "volume/area" x time to " Ampere law"


permanent/periodic : also our SUN ( die Sonne) hat ihre Periode(n) ( luna-/female menustration period)

Hi LankaTV

   Yes
   Shape matters
      very much

       But I'm not sure what shape is optimal.
                  maybe square ?

   Please find the attached PDF file

   4 FILES
   3 JPG
   1 PDF

               floor

[ayeaye]

Why these magnets try to become parallel, this is perfectly explainable by the Coulomb model. Opposite poles attract. Nothing strange, no overunity.

[lancaIV]

Why these magnets try to become parallel, this is perfectly explainable by the Coulomb model. Opposite poles attract. Nothing strange, no overunity.

JLNaudin Lab " push and pull" experiment and measure by a balance :
the difference between repulsion activity and attraction activity  !

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm

You may notice that the tangential force is LESS THAN the axial repulsive force. This is confirmed by a computer simulation and calculation.




Is it on earth  same or more attractive to have the rotor vertical or horizontal  ? On Luna : 1/6 g  !

Permanent magnets have North + South polarisation  ( di-/bipolar) ! Electromagnets ? Dis-/advantage !?

From one rotor/stator on one shaft to multiple rotors/stators on one shaft  !
The poles a-/symetrical ratio on stator to rotor  ?

We can amplify each permanent magnet force by compression aerial  360° activity to 180° or 90° or less activity area :magnetic shielding
Dis-/advantage ?

Wrapping the permanent magnets ( to matnetic diode) with em coils/foils and neutralize or amplify the pm output ! Dis-/advantage ?!

Does your "Coulomb model" ayeaye in controled manner respect all the differences here  ?

Is the decay force from Cobalt,Neodymium,Samarium included in your resulta  ?

Sincerely
OCWL


p.s.:

Radiactivity was discovered past Monsieur Coulomb his life !

Magnetism and Curie-temperature relationship ?



in german : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb universal or partial ? Only partial : electrostatics without magnetostatics ! Influenz as electrostatic induction !


                  to https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCoulombsches_Gesetz




                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostatics

[ayeaye]

JLNaudin Lab " push and pull" experiment and measure by a balance :
the difference between repulsion activity and attraction activity  !

No, i mean that the fact itself that the magnet rotates so that it becomes parallel to the other magnet, doesn't by itself mean a difference from the Coulomb model. And doesn't mean that there is any overunity, because there cannot be any overunity in the Coulomb model.

On the drawing below is that rotation modeled by the Coulomb model. As one can see, there is nothing strange, the opposite poles just attract to each other and cause the rotation.

The Coulomb model of that setup looks like that. All poles are modeled only as points, no matter what shape they have, or how flat or wide they are. This point is theoretically a point with the greatest force inside the pole, that can be roughly the same as the center of gravity of the pole area.

All of these poles in the Coulomb model have a perfectly spherical field that decreases inverse of square of distance, just as the force of an electrostatic charge, or the gravity in the Newton theory.

This doesn't mean that there cannot be overunity in that setup, as you say Naudin found. But only when there are differences from the Coulomb model, that is non-Coulomb irregularities.

It was not shown by measurements or anyhow, that in that setup there are differences from the Coulomb model. The claim that two magnets rotating becoming parallel, is anyhow unusual, or may indicate any overunity, is simply wrong and doesn't make sense. This is all what i wanted to say.

[lancaIV]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_stress_tensor


to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force




to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence  right side ; the Minkowski model
There is FM = Frequency Modulation and AM= Amplitude Modulation and SM=  Space Modulation and TM= Time Modulation included,Makro-and Mikro- mono-/poly- dimensional