Magnets, motion and measurement

[ayeaye]

1. I did not say your experiment was V gate.

"Also, and since you bring it up,  yes,  your design / experiment is a V gate variation."

Oh please.

Citfta, do you also agree with both of these statements?

I have never seen V-gate referenced as asymmetry of the field. If it works with attraction, It is just a row of magnets, where every next pole is nearer to the stator magnet. It can be V-shape or a spiral on a disk. Because the next magnet is nearer, then certainly it moves towards the stator magnet. This design can be completely modeled by the Coulomb model, and thus cannot have overunity.

I don't know whether your ideas are your own, or taken from somewhere. But even if some of your ideas are your own, ok that you write about them, but please don't mislead people.

Norman, thank you.

[ayeaye]

PS Floor, you say that i'm stating the obvious. If i state something that is really true, even when i found it, then it is certainly also obvious. The problem is that you willingly deny the obvious.

[lancaIV]

ayeaye,probably anybody asked you so I will do it :
What and which is the " ayeaye Coulomb model" ?
Can you give detailed structure and formulation that by this " ayeaye hypothesis model by Coulomb " simulation would be configureable ?

Approvements are ever wellcomed

wmbr
OCWL

[ayeaye]

What and which is the " ayeaye Coulomb model" ?

There is no "ayeaye Coulomb model". There is Coulomb model for magnets. In the very essence my view is that overunity in permanent magnets is only where are differences from the Coulomb model, and it is caused by the differences from the Coulomb model. May be obvious, but some still willingly ignore it, or confuse or mislead.

Coulomb model for magnets is the model proposed by Coulomb, where all poles have a perfectly spherical field, with inverse square law always applying, even when poles are close to each other. For such model, every pole is considered to be a point, which is usually the center of the pole area. Consider like magnets with poles on large flat sides, think how much the field of a pole by that model there differs from the real field of the pole.

This difference of the field of a pole from the Coulomb model, provides a certain asymmetry of the field. How this asymmetry can cause a gain of energy, can be estimated by knowing the shape of the field. Like, when there is a pole with more field lines on one side than the other, then obviously one gains energy when entering the field with a pole of another magnet, at the side where are more field lines, and exiting the field at the side where are less field lines.

This asymmetry can be called a non-Coulomb irregularity, because in the Coulomb model of the same magnet there is no such asymmetry, and thus there is a difference from the Coulomb model. In spite this is not a very sophisticated approach, it nevertheless enables to estimate the possible overunity in a setup, and makes the research and experimenting much more methodical, instead of just randomly trying and seeing whether there maybe is overunity, like searching a needle in the haystack.

But Floor tries to knock off any such approach in the bud. Instead wanting people to do experiments of his fancy tricks with magnets, where he does not provide a sole real reason why there should be overunity, and leave the experimenters then to blindly try, maybe some overunity sometimes occurs in some of his setups.

That is, the only reason for overunity in Floor's designs he is known to say, is balancing the forces between different poles of the magnets. But this balancing forces can all be modeled by the Coulomb model, thus there is no overunity in such designs. The reason he gives is thus false. He also continuously emphasizes that magnets in his designs are always supposed to correspond to the Newton's law, which is the same as the Coulomb model, in spite incorrect, as Newton did not propose his law for magnets, Coulomb did.

In addition, Floor tries to disregard my experiment, that is in another thread here. Where i measured a gain of energy from asymmetry of the field, and this was replicated by Telecom, confirming the results. Calling it a "V-gate". That is, sometimes saying that it is "V-gate" and sometimes saying that he never said that, confusing the minds of the readers to the extreme.

Trying to explain things to Floor, he willingly ignores all explanations, so explaining to him doesn't help. Not to talk several rude personal attacks by Floor and Citfta against me, for the only reason that i'm critical of their work. Ok, i have been attacked before, and called all names, important is not me as an individual, but the objectivity of the research.

[Floor]

@norman6538

Nice work / thanks for time spent,

It has become a pleasent task to read your observations / ideas so on.

Thanks for bumping up the clairity a notch.

   best wishes
            floor