TD replications

[gotoluc]

I just popped in here without reading the entire thread.

Please give me some links to your work, in which you had summed the force*distance for the input and output of your system, so I can evaluate it.
If I notice anything you have omitted or any errors, I'll let you know.

Hi verpies,

Nice to see you here.

The below videos (in order) relate to the around 60% over unity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUlDMY1iE5A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBaeJD38HI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6sbIgr2L8A


And the below videos are v 2.0 which is a Super build of the above
Just completed the build on Friday so no measurements yet.
I'll have to bolt down this beast to measure her

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMVES42VbzA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsEbX8yJ91I

Regards

Luc

[dieter]

Nice build. Reminds me a bit of Teslas Earthquake machine tho ^^ Make sure to have a sledge hammer at hand during the test run, in case of any runaway /evac situation.

[Floor]

@ Nonlinear

Here in PDF (easy to down load / contemplate off line) form is
my responce to your postings. 

Please find the attached file  "MagnetForceIntegration.PDF"

       Thanks for your input
                       best wishes
                                floor

@ all readers
The above PDF file is not a private message.

[Nonlinear]

BTW, your calculations came to the same as I had calculated, so again I fail to see what I forgot.

Here is a parable: Joe and Fred have calculated the surface area of a gate that they want to paint, which is a square. They know how much paint is needed per square meter. So if they calculate the surface area of the gate then they will know how much paint they will have to buy, and how much that will cost. One side of the square is 2m long. Joe calculates the surface area as S=(2[m])^2=2^2[m^2]=4[m^2]. Fred prefers to calculate the same as S=2+2=4.

As you can see in this specific case the numerical result of both calculations are the same (4) and correct, but Fred is calculating it the wrong way. If the length of one side is not 2m but let's say 3m, then Joe will get a correct result as S=(3[m])^2=9[m^2], but Fred's result of S=3+3=6 will be wrong. The fact that two different methods of calculation give the same result for a specific case (or even for several specific cases) does not mean that both methods of calculation are equally valid for all possible cases.

I do remember reading it and re-read but can't seem to understand or find what I have not provided.

You have provided useful measurement data, and doing a great work on testing the energy balance of different magnet arrangements. I did not say that you did not do anything useful, or that you have not provided something essential. Your data already merits serious investigation (if true) and that is the reason I have chimed in and trying to help. Even if it finally turns out that there is no real COP>1 in these permanent magnet arrangements, the measurements are still of value if they are scientifically correct and sufficiently accurate. In such a case future experimenters can already know that it might not be the best idea to look for overunity in this area.

But both your method of setting the measurement points and the method of calculating the COP are not the most scientific and accurate, and therefore not very convincing for the scientifically minded. You can fix this with no extra effort, and obtain/present neat measurement results for the same cost and work spent. The correct approach will also be valid for any possible measurement point distribution.

So I guess you'll have to explain what I have not done.

You have done it (calculated the COP), just not the right way, which was also suggested by telecom, but now I see that it has been nicely described even earlier on January 04 by Floor:
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg498005/#msg498005

If you read the explanations in the pdf that is attached below this post, you will see that in general case it is not wise to use uniform segment sizes. In the regions where the curvature of the force function that you are measuring is large, one supposed to use small displacement sizes. Where the curve is nearly straight line (nearly constant increase or decrease of force per same displacement) one can use larger displacement increments.

If the segment sizes are not uniform, then your method of simply averaging the forces, and ignoring the lengths of individual displacements will give a wrong final results. It is also wise to conform with the established scientific method of calculating the COP as the ratio of the output and input work (not average forces).

Have I given a correct interpretation of the basics of the process for calculating the
work in these magnet interactions here ........
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg498005/#msg498005        ?

Yes, except for the minor math error in this formula: Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2. First one must add the two forces together, and then divide the result by 2. Your version first divides Fi by 2 and then adds Fp to it, which gives a wrong result.

If so, and with your permission    ..... then I will re post those three pages / files here ?

This is your thread, you don't need my permission. It indeed makes sense to post everything relevant into this thread as well. Although I have also attached a similar pdf document to this message to clarify the calculation methods, yours is also useful, because it explains the subject in more layman terms and it may help those with less technical knowledge. If we want to implement the best method of COP calculation, then I (of someone else) will have to slightly modify the earlier posted spreadsheet as well (but the change is trivially simple).

A COP of 161.2838 .... does this mean basically the same thing as 61.2838 % more out than in ?

Yes, it does. Whatever you get above 100% is free excess energy.

[Floor]

QUOTE from Nonlinear

"Yes, except for the minor math error in this formula: Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct
in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2. First one must eadd together the two forces, and th results is
divided by 2. Your version first divided Fi by 2 and then adds Fp to it, which gives a wrong
result."

END QUOTE
                                  OK
Average force = (peak force -  initial force) / 2 ............ I see,  previously .... I left out the parentheses.

Force applied = average force    times    displacement.
.........................................
.........................................
note also.... proof reading on the fly often misses errors
e.g.  except for your minor math error

" Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2."
First one must eadd together the two forces, and th results is
divided by 2.

                     should read

(Pf - if)/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2.
First one must    subtract    the two forces, and the results is
divided by 2.

Corrections are duly noted and requested, welcomed,... this is, in part, why
the subject matter is in a public forum.

However please understand that this is NOT a conventional class room.
You will not be accorded a special status based upon any degrees.

I am neither a math wiz nor an expert in magnets nor physics.
But then neither do I have the kind of brain damage that some times
results from the traditional abuses in the course of academic conditioning.
                       (not that you do either, I don't know ?)
People on this forum, that are here to learn, are here to learn..... 
what, where and why they want to learn .... not your or some other
specific curriculum.

This topic is not a competition, cooperation is the goal.  Many trolls are very knowledgeable.  If you become a disruption to the topic, no matter how cleverly you do so, the topic will become moderated. and posts simple deleted.

You can contribute, but just know that we don't need your "help".
                                Hopeing you can continue to stay involved, sincerely
                                              floor