Magnetic OU principle, You should really take a look at this !

[drsquires]

This is in response to "derricka" post 145 quoted below:

"Dave, thanks for sharing these drawings. Seeing a diagram of your magnet motor, many years ago, on jlnlabs.org is what got me started in doing my own magnetic experiments, so I give you full credit. Though I'm sure you are up to your eyeballs in patents and non disclosures, I know many of us here would be interested in a history of your work, and some of your earlier devices.  Anything you are willing to provide, here or elsewhere, now or later, is much appreciated."

Well, I am NOT up to my eyeballs in patents and NDA's.  That would be nice if I were.
As for a history of my work...there's not much to tell except running thousands of simulations on
hundreds of ideas that don't or won't work.  I have a few things in the hopper that do or will work, but those
I have to keep quiet until I prove them on the bench. All of that work has been an exercise in learning
mostly what won't work.  That is valuable information in itself as now I don't bother spinning my
wheels in areas that I know have no chance of working or are just not practical.  e.g. Joseph Newman's
motors...who needs a 1000lb machine that is OU by 3% and outputs 100 watts extra power.
It just isn't practical.  There are other examples that are 3% to 5% OU (COP = 1.03 to 1.05).
They are useless in my book.

As an example of a more standard design, I have designed and simulated a more standard
AC generator that has the highest power density possible.  It has standard drag, but is about a tenth
the size of an equivalent typical design.   Imagine a generator about 22" diameter and 16" long with
an RMS output capacity of 604KW at 110VAC rms.  Copper loss is 10.8KW rms or 542 watts/turn rms
at a peak load current of 7769 amps.   A typical generator of this output capacity would be 10x bigger.

Other high efficiency motors I have looked at are capable of COP values of 2 to 10. 
Compared to what I am looking at now those are "throwaway" technologies.
They have their uses and perhaps I can develop them someday.  But when you are broke that's
hard to do.   So I have to focus on the simplest and most robust methods with the highest
efficiencies possible to guarantee success. 

I have been optimizing this orthogonal field constant reluctance solenoid technology for a year now
and have applications that are way ahead of everyone else on this forum.  Those are my inventions
and I have to keep them under wraps to insure they get out to the world. So I won't be revealing
those here.  They need to get into production in practical applications.  This is not the
place to be discussing such sensitive details.  Next year should see significant progress in
that direction.  Coming up with ideas is one thing.  Making them production worthy devices
for specific applications and marketing them is quite another. That takes a lot more work and
a significant amount of funding to make it happen. 

Cheers,
Dave Squires

[Butch]

I caution everyone about getting to excited at this point with this technology. There are no public videos or demonstrations of self running at this time. The claims fall into the endless list of claims of overunity. So far the only overunity proof exist in words only and lack of in person public demostrations is answered by an endless string of excuses. Lets stay in touch with the real world and work toward a self runner and then the party can start. The internet is a good place for talking at a safe distance without having to face the consequences. But that catches up with people in time. I will see to that personally.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte

[drsquires]

In one sense I agree with Butch.  Don't get too excited and just get into endless discussions about
whether this will work or not.  Do something instead and build your own tests to prove it.

As for me you won't see any public demonstrations from my side.  I don't have to prove this to
anyone else nor do I want to attract the wrong kind of attention.  I don't want any public attention or to be
on the six o'clock news or YouTube like so many other blowhards that really have nothing of substance.

But I would encourage you to go do your own bench tests, simulations or whatever. 
I have done mine already.  I know this works and have explained it here in enough detail
that those in the know would know I am right.  Anyone really competent in magnetics,
electronics, and physics would know right away that a system that shows no change in inductance
or has equal area torque or force profiles for entry and exit phases while generating a force
at right angles to the motion has to work with very high efficiency.  There is no doubt.

What we don't need are these kinds of veiled threats and mean spirited words such as just posted by Butch.

"The internet is a good place for talking at a safe distance without having to face the consequences. But that catches up with people in time. I will see to that personally."

You don't need to believe me or Butch.  Ignore both of us and go do your own work to prove it to yourself.
You all have enough information to do the work.  I will not be posting to this forum any longer. There's no need now.

Also, I have no need or desire to read such contentious threatening nonsense as Butch just posted.
You might want to ask yourselves why he would feel the need to write such threatening words
and poison the whole discussion.  I am wondering myself what he is so bothered about that he would say
such things.  I am shaking my head in disbelief and disgust.

Good Bye and Good Luck,
Dave Squires

[tak22]

@Dave

Thank you for coming here and sharing enough to get us inspired,
and in enough detail for us to get on with it ourselves.

tak

[Koen1]

Still having trouble seeing how the seperation of a few washers is going to produce 50 times
the input energy...

Since Wizkycho apparently can't or won't explain that,
perhaps Yucca, Dave or Butch could explain it?

All I see you guys talk about is a method to remove an attracted magnet
from the washer stack by replacing it with another magnet, thereby
minimalising the energy input needed to move the magnet out of
its attraction position...
But how do the washers produce the 5000% output?

Or is it "just" a variation of the LaFonte Equilibrium effect, "just" serious decrease
of the magnetic "drag"?
So that the resulting motor doesn't experience nearly as much drag, and thereby
behaves much more efficient than a "normal" motor?
Is that the big breakthrough?

Because with all the focus on the washers I got the impression that you were
actually saying the washer effect itself was responsible for the 5000% OU...