Very Testable Claim from Kedron

[Mr.Entropy]

However, so many graphs and data about the horizontally work in close proximity and not a single mention about the work required to horizontally move the magnets at some distance. After all, the magnets move on a closed loop, aren?t they? I?d be glad to be wrong but I suppose the author just neglected to measure the work needed to close the loop.

They measured force vs. distance from "far away" to the zero position, using face-on and sliding motions.  The work was calculated in both cases as the area under these curves, and they found that it was different for the different paths.

It is true that to "close the loop", you'd also have to move from one far away position to another, or reorient the magnets while they were far away, or something like that, but it doesn't really matter.  You can see from the measurement that the magnetic forces when the magnets are far away are negligible, so there's no significant cost to moving the magnets around however you like at that distance.

I haven?t tried it as presented in the file. It requires a lot of patience and I doubt the forces and work can be very accurately measured, due to the large interval the magnitude of forces varies.

I think I've figured out a simple setup, moving the magnets vertically and using threaded brass rod for accurate positioning and a digital scale to measure the forces.  I think I'll look around today for a digital scale, and I'll actually do the experiment if I can get one for not too much cash.

If not, I'll try to work out some way to measure the work directly by measuring the height of a pendulum swing.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[Omnibus]

However, so many graphs and data about the horizontally work in close proximity and not a single mention about the work required to horizontally move the magnets at some distance. After all, the magnets move on a closed loop, aren?t they? I?d be glad to be wrong but I suppose the author just neglected to measure the work needed to close the loop.

They measured force vs. distance from "far away" to the zero position, using face-on and sliding motions.  The work was calculated in both cases as the area under these curves, and they found that it was different for the different paths.

It is true that to "close the loop", you'd also have to move from one far away position to another, or reorient the magnets while they were far away, or something like that, but it doesn't really matter.  You can see from the measurement that the magnetic forces when the magnets are far away are negligible, so there's no significant cost to moving the magnets around however you like at that distance.

I haven?t tried it as presented in the file. It requires a lot of patience and I doubt the forces and work can be very accurately measured, due to the large interval the magnitude of forces varies.

I think I've figured out a simple setup, moving the magnets vertically and using threaded brass rod for accurate positioning and a digital scale to measure the forces.  I think I'll look around today for a digital scale, and I'll actually do the experiment if I can get one for not too much cash.

If not, I'll try to work out some way to measure the work directly by measuring the height of a pendulum swing.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

That's trivial. What should be done is implement that trivial stuff into a working model producing excess energy, that is energy out of nothing, continuously (discontinuous production of excess energy has already been proven beyond doubt). The closest so far, except for Finsrud's maybe, is @xpenzif's contraption. It should be the focus.

[Mr.Entropy]

Also see the patent mentioned in this thread:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3327.0.html

They use repulsion, but they show 1 Joule in, getting 4 Joules out.

It's interesting that their claims are symmetrical -- that patent relies on the sliding path being easier with the magnets in repulsion, while Kedron relies on the sliding path being more difficult with the magnets in attraction.

Mr. Entropy