Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



TD replications

Started by Floor, November 18, 2016, 11:14:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Floor

@Wattsup

QUOTE from Wattsup
"But in your experiment the arm is being lifted by and from the center shaft via
the length of one neo magnet so it has to fight against the full leverage of the
arm, so the actual mechanical process of the experiment is not pulling the arm
from the tip as you have tabulated. "  END QUOTE

I'm guessing you have already realized that the lifting on the (rotating magnet)
indicator / lift arm is against the magnetic force between the RO magnet and the SL
magnet.

It takes a little while to grok the motions and interactions in the "TD" unit, and then
yet more time, for this to settle in.  No worries though, after 2 years of the TD, I'm
still some times befuddled.

                   regards
                      floor
                 

Floor

@Luc

some observations

Your build successfully demonstrates that the SL becomes nearly
free from the linear motivating forces between it and RO when
RO is at 90 from parallel to SL.

SL needs to be very far from RO,  before RO will be nearly free
from rotation motivating forces, between it and SL.

also see the attached files.

your device needs further modifications and dialing in.

                     best wishes
                             floor

gotoluc

Quote from: Floor on December 07, 2016, 09:31:10 AM
Your build successfully demonstrates that the SL becomes nearly
free from the linear motivating forces between it and RO when
RO is at 90 from parallel to SL.

Yes, I agree!

Quote from: Floor on December 07, 2016, 09:31:10 AM
SL needs to be very far from RO,  before RO will be nearly free
from rotation motivating forces, between it and SL.


True, the SL (sliding magnet) needs to be far away from RO (rotating magnet) to have zero influence.
The reason I cannot obtain measurements on my scale when disengaging the SL torque arm is because the arm is 12 inches long and was originally designed to measure foot pounds.
To get a scale reading on test 4 (disengage arm) I would have to reduce the SL arm length by half if not more to get the scale to register something.
I didn't feel it was necessary to modify the device at this point since I'm not seeing any advantages using the rectangular magnets over the ring magnets I originally tested and designed the device to measure.
I'm going to move on to testing other magnet configurations that produce more torque so it's best to keep thing as they are.
Hope that makes sense?

Quote from: Floor on December 07, 2016, 09:31:10 AM
also see the attached files.
your device needs further modifications and dialing in.

As for your great diagrams, thanks for taking the time to do them ... I agree to all points and have been aware of each scenario.
On the first one, I was aware of the potential problem, so right from the start I took great care in keeping the scale angle at 90 degrees of the SL and RO arms throughout their torque travel. So there should be no errors in the scale data provided to date.

The other issue which I also knew of, is true, the crankshaft will influence the linear scale readings of the SL input torque arm. However, since measurements are done in each directions (engage & disengage) there cannot be an advantage or gain from using a crankshaft mechanism since if it did we would of solved the energy problems some time back.
With this in mind I trust the method and measurement used to be a true reflection of input force. However, I do agree by using a crankshaft on the input arm I'm not getting a linear input torque measurement, so the charts I made are affected by this fact.

Hope this answers your concerns?
Please feel free or anyone else explain if I fail to understand something or have error in my logic.

Kind regards

Luc

Floor

@gotoluc

still on the same page.

I have to ask these questions, It's just part of the process (scientific).
I sure you get it. Your work is much appreciated.

                 regards
                          floor

gotoluc

Quote from: Floor on December 07, 2016, 07:32:31 PM
@gotoluc

still on the same page.

I have to ask these questions, It's just part of the process (scientific).
I sure you get it. Your work is much appreciated.

                 regards
                          floor


Great and thanks for asking these important questions which I could of explained in my video but I try to keep them as short as possible so I stick to important details.
I do understand these questions need to be asked to ensure we're on the right track and I appreciate answering them.

I hope more experimenters like Vidar, TK and so on are going to find things we haven't considered yet.
Could it be there's nothing else?
Come on guys, you know this shouldn't be so

Luc