TD replications

[Cairun]

The proposed operation is this (referring to the earlier version where force measurements were done):

1) The stroke length of the slider was already about 10 times shorter than the travel length of the rotor magnet. If you allow the slider to deliver its work even faster say 10 times faster than the speed of the rotor magnet, then the freely rotating rotor will travel only about 1/100th distance of the stroke during the movement of the slider. This is negligible, and it nicely approximates a perfectly synchronized rotor-slider. It is also possible that a slower movement of the slider would be also satisfactory. Like for example just let both slider and rotor move at the same speed. In that case the rotor would travel 1/10th of the rotor's stroke distance while the slider completes its stroke. One can calculate how much efficiency gets lost this way and find an optimum, a compromise between practicality and ideal condition.

2) The synchronous operation can be guaranteed by using a toque brake on the shaft, and keeping the RPM of the rotor at sufficiently low level, so that the slider should be able to complete the stroke before the rotor travels a significant distance away from the synchronous position. The torque developed on the brake can be measured, just like the RPM, from which one can calculate the output power.

3) A large enough flywheel will absorb and smooth out any jerky movement, and contribute to the slow synchronous operation.

4) A timing latch could be utilized (similar to the one used in old pendulum clocks) to time and synchronize the release of the slider magnets at the right moments, only slightly before the rotor completely covers the slider magnet.

5) The linear bidirectional movement of the slider can be rectified and converted to unidirectional rotation using two bicycle hubs (or similar ratchet mechanism), one on each side. One on the left side drives the flywheel while moving forward, and the other on the right side drives it while moving backwards.

6) this way a continuous rotatory movement can be sustained, with an easy and handy way of measuring the output power. No need for accelerating and decelerating the output wheel, or stroke. But it would make sense to start designing such a machine only after precise reliable measurements prove the existence of at least 20-30% of excess energy. Anything below that would make it challenging to overcome the losses, and it would have no practical significance anyway.

Nonlinear,


Thank you for you detailed input.  Your proposed design is a good way to to mechanically loop Luc's design.
However, I think a cam and follower setup(like it is shown in this video[size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqyiLaUw5g[/size]) is simpler and better captures the motion of the operational sequence.
Perhaps, I place too much emphasis on maximizing output and minimizing input, but every little bit helps .


Regards,
Alex

[Drak]

Hi gotoluc,

I think it would probably be best if you did not lock the output to the input. I would make sure that your output is able to ADD to the input instead of having to wait on the input before it can move. As long as they are in resonance with each other (the timing is correct) it should work. You would need a mechanical capacitor to store the energy but still have the rotor turn at the same speed (the hard part). You wouldn't be able to have it going faster then the slider can handle or it will go out of resonance like in your video when you have to adjust the speed to get the slider working at full swings. If you mechanically lock the output to the input it will be like trying observe an electron without disturbing it. They both need to move freely on their own.

Just my thoughts. Great builds I love your work!

drak

[Nonlinear]

Thank you for you detailed input.  Your proposed design is a good way to to mechanically loop Luc's design.
However, I think a cam and follower setup(like it is shown in this video[size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqyiLaUw5g[/size]) is simpler and better captures the motion of the operational sequence.
Perhaps, I place too much emphasis on maximizing output and minimizing input, but every little bit helps .

Alex,
Your cam follower design is good; it will allow the mechanism to rotate at higher speeds as well, while keeping the synchronous movement. Regarding efficiency though, I am not convinced that the cam follower would waste less energy than what I have proposed, because the roller bearings are wasting energy along the whole path of the tracks, which can get excessive at high speeds of rotation. But if there would be really 60% excess energy, then both designs should be able to at least self-run.

The problem is not with the feedback mechanism, but rather with the claim of excess energy. Despite my original reluctance, I have forced myself to read through the other related threads of Floor, and now my suspicions of deliberate deception have been confirmed. There is definitely no excess energy in such purely permanent magnet arrangements, just as theory predicts. Lumen's improved measurements have proven this already (in the now closed thread) here:
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg498010/#msg498010
and Stefan has closed the thread as well, because the subject is closed (no overunity). Despite the correct disproof, the agenda to mislead and deceive is still in full swing with a show of nice looking contraptions and fake (or grossly erroneous) measurement results.

Another example of disproof is webby1's attempt to convince Luc that he has to measure the 4th part of the cycle as well, in one of his earlier devices. He finally succeeded in this effort in post:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496971/#msg496971
and Luc has reluctantly provided the data in:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496974/#msg496974
When this 4th part of the cycle was taken into account, then Luc's averaging calculations showed only 10% of excess work, which can be very easily attributed to the other bad measurement practices mentioned earlier.

Without free energy being created, the whole show of nice devices and designs are nothing more than the shiny paint on the car from which the engine is missing (useless).

As an illustration of this absurdity there is a famous example called overbalanced wheel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
The gravitational field is conservative just like a spring. You can not get more continuous work from gravity than what you have to invest, and this is completely independent of the path of movement. One can not get more work out from a spring than what one has to invest while pressing it together. It doesn't matter whether the spring is linear or nonlinear, it is still conservative and it is very easy to prove this.

The magnetic field can be imagined as a net made of millions of tiny springs that react only with magnetic materials. It does not matter how complex net you form from such springs, they still remain conservative. The magnetic field is conservative, and Lumen has already proven this, but some people prefer to ignore this fact.

I know that it is possible to create overunity generators, for example cold fusion is one of them. Accurate measurements performed by qualified physicists prove that. But purely permanent magnet arrangements will definitely not produce overunity. Therefore I will not post on this subject for a while, because now my interest is only in observing the psychology of deception. I will just sit back and observe how far a hoax can go before some readers get fed up with the nonsense and start kicking some butts. When the whole thing blows over, then I will come back to say: "I told you so... didn't I" 

[citfta]

Nonlinear,

You are way out of line.  I don't know Floor that well but I have known Luc for years.  To accuse him of deliberately misleading is very wrong.  Luc is a dedicated researcher looking for the truth.  He has tried to follow any suggestions from anyone to make his measurements more accurate.  He has not claimed OU anywhere that I am aware of.  He only presents the results of his tests.  When he sees results that look promising he will pursue those results until he is convinced they do not lead to an OU device.  That is research, not deception.  You owe him an apology for suggesting he is deliberately misleading others.

As far as OU goes, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  I worked in electronics for over 50 years and have seen several times things that left me scratching my head.  So I do believe OU MAY be possible.  I am not convinced it IS possible nor am I convinced it is NOT possible.  So I continue with my own research and follow the research of others like Luc that are willing to share their efforts.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[Cairun]

Nonlinear,


Luc's current design is different than the original TD setup.  I will perform measurements to help verify Luc's measurement results after I get back from my business travels(hopefully I will be back in about 3 weeks). 


Regards,
Alex