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

[wizkycho]

Well yeah, that was clear from the start.
But that's something completely different from the idea you have so aggressively been pushing over the past weeks,
where you claimed that it is possible to produce 50:1 overunity by moving the magnets to and fro.
Mwahaha raaaaaight.... And you dared to accuse me of pompous posts? LMAO

But really, you were so very adamant that you can produce 50 times the input energy using this "fanner" principle,
but you still haven't shown it. Shouting very loudly that you are convinced it is so is no proof. Show it.
Build a simple setup in which the elements you indicated as crucial are incorporated, so there's the washer stack,
the magnets, the mechanism to move the magnets, and the magnetic equilibrium mechanism, and your piston,
and the collector coils, and then input an X amount of energy and show that you measure 50X the output energy.
Do that, and I shall graceously admit that I was wrong in doubting your claims and attitude.
But keep shouting "it is so!" with zero empirical foundation, and I will just keep replying "I don't think so".

Hi koen1 !

which setup would you recommend me to build:
- with rotating cilindrical magnet (charley_Vs proposal)
- or linear moving magnet-core pair proposed by my drawing
- or Simple to build Hildebrand but magnetic transistor type motor (MEP_motor - magnetic energy pump motor)
- or Genesis Type of magnetic trans motor
- or just tell me what type of device you prefere.

or nothing above has chance of giving FE

Thanks for advice

Wiz

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

Advise welcome. I would like the groups advise on a proposed V design magnet build. I was thinking a N42 3/4" by 2" cylendar magnet between two steel plates drilled for the magnets accomodation with a 1/2" gap filled with aluminum. The washer section would be surrounded by steel with the exception of the 1/2" gap. The washers would be thin and strapped ( epoxy) together in 2 sections perhaps 1/2"thick.

The object would be to 1) transfer rotational force to rectolinear force, 2) measure the input and output forces, strokes and distances, 3) calculate input to output work, 4) report results.

Prior to starting what recommendations do you have?

[g4macdad]

Hi Dave S. and Butch,
great to hear that you both finally have come to the conclusion that
Butch was the first one to think about this and
has put it out  9 years ago.

As Dave did not know this and Butch did put out so many designs,
which many of them lacking a good andwell explained descriptions, it is no wonder,
that is was ignored for so long.

As Dave realized this principle on his own and told me
privately about it, also without me knowing that Butch had already
put it out 9 years ago, I was baffled when I learned it later
from Dave and Butch, that it was already out.

When Dave did not yet know about it being already published by Butch long time ago,
he still wanted to get a patent about the basic idea and then he
learned from Butch, that it was already in the public domain.

Now it is good to see, that many people can use this and Dave still
can patent his own work for real machines based on it, so he at least
gets some reward for all his simulation work which he showed me in parts privately.

I think he has proven with his FEMM simulations that this principle is
THE BREAKTHROUGH in "cracking the magnetic code", how Dave called it
and is the most promising principle
of an overunity motor.

Too bad, Butch did not explain it better 9 years ago, so more people
would have understood it and already worked on this long time ago.

But anyway, now as it is out, this is the best "new"(old) magnet overunity motor
principle !

Regards, Stefan.

With all due respect Stefan, that is the biggest lump of double talk mumbo jumbo I have ever read. 

[Discworld]

@Stefan

I want to comment with something a little offtopic, I know it is easier to keep some action in a board by dropping in headlines like this "Cracking the Magnetic Code ! OU motors with a 50:1 output:input now possible !"

But honestly thats a very unreliable yellow press style.

In my eyes this actually is just another "working" theory not more not less. When I read stuff like that:

>> Q. How many others have replicated the effect so far?
A. "Yes, one that I know of, but has asked to remain anonymous due to fear of action from big oil against himself and family." <<

everything about it turns noncredible to me. What would be the easist way to prevent action from big oil? Release a working plan to the world.

Would you tell the world if you´d have invented the gold replicating machine? No you would not.
In my eyes there are only 3 attitudes about this.

1. Someone lives on a higher level than capitalism and believes he could help the world. This one would release a working plan of such a machine.
2. Someone believes in money. This one would never release a working plan to the world.
3. Someone has a theory but it is nothing more than a theory. This one is releasing the idea to the world in hope that someone makes it a working machine.
In fact it might work but he forgets that the one who makes it a working machine probably won´t ever release his plans unless he is type 1.

So ishouldn´t the headline say: OU motors with a 50:1 output:input now THEORETICALY possible !
To be serious.

[Ergo]

But really, you were so very adamant that you can produce 50 times the input energy using this "fanner" principle,
but you still haven't shown it. Shouting very loudly that you are convinced it is so is no proof. Show it.
Build a simple setup in which the elements you indicated as crucial are incorporated, so there's the washer stack,
the magnets, the mechanism to move the magnets, and the magnetic equilibrium mechanism, and your piston,
and the collector coils, and then input an X amount of energy and show that you measure 50X the output energy.
Do that, and I shall graceously admit that I was wrong in doubting your claims and attitude.
But keep shouting "it is so!" with zero empirical foundation, and I will just keep replying "I don't think so".

Hello Koen1

I'm with you in this matter and I have thought a lot about it lately and I think I have found the reason why it won't work.
As usually when people go crazy over something and totaly believe they have found the holy grail they always miss
out on something that "they didn't think of". And that scenario is repeated every time. Sometimes thinking is of good use.

The thing is: A setup using a line of washer piles placed between a moving horseshoe magnet will have an unwanted effect.
The nearby piles will also get repelled by the magnet and it declines from the center of the strongest magnetic field, being the magnet.
The repel force from the washers will spread out on all affected piles of washers. And the accessible power is consumed by inertia.
So this is the nail in the coffin on the washer idea...To bad, for a short while I really hoped we had something good going on here.