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 this Forum, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above
Thanks to ALL for your help!!


Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.

Started by broli, May 26, 2009, 06:59:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Butch LaFonte

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2009, 07:59:42 PM
"I'm sure this all sounds confusing but it makes sense if you understand it."
Uh-huh, differential equations are like that too.

So, in terms I might understand, the hypothesis under test is that, if the magnets are close together, it will take more force to separate the assembly than if the magnets are far apart. Force is defined in the usual way and is to be measured by looking at the lever arm that a known weight must be at to exert enough force to separate the bars. The data will be in some accurate length measure of the lever (moment) arms involved, as in the video shown, and let's say, means of 5 trials in each condition will be compared, the conditions being (1) magnets close and in contact with both blocks, and  (2) magnets far and in contact with both blocks.

And we are neglecting the forces involved in setting up the situation and also neglecting friction.

But, do I have to use 2x4s?

Now, possible results from this experiment (for now it is an experiment) are three: 1) The magnets close together could make it harder to separate the blocks. 2) The magnets close together could make it easier to separate the blocks. 3) There could be no difference in the force required to separate the blocks. And since we are defining force by a distance measure, we need to decide how far apart the means of the distance measurements we are making need to be to call them "different", and we need to know the magnitude of our error(s) in measurement, etc. so we can know if our "difference" is likely to be real or the result of experimental error.

But--even if the experiment fails to reject the hypothesis, and it turns out to be correct that in this configuration it's easier to separate the bars when the magnets are apart, it still won't mean you can make a permanent magnet motor out of it.
If the magnets apart and seperated take the exact same amount of work to pull the bar away then the system when incorporated in the rotary design animation I posted, the machine will be overunity.
Even if it takes a little more work to to remove them when seperated as compared to together the system will still be overunity as long as the negative work in not equal to or more than the work done by the rotor magnet when it pulls to the fixed magnet.
See this animation > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbK9Di4Oebs&feature=channel_page
Butch

broli

Since you like statistics so much, this experiment would prove a working motor for about 38%. If you include the cancellation magnets it would be proven 68%. Finally with the reciprocating magnets included on a flywheel it would be proven 98%. The 2% is experimental errors and stupidity.

petersone

Hi Broli and All
I done a simple test with this,I know Butch doesn't agree with me,but,there is more attraction when mags. are apart,also a force x distance thing,when the mags. are together they are using a short distance of air to complete the circuit,they are not to bothered with the iron,when the mags. are apart,large air gap,the mags, will "look" for the iron from much further away.It may look to be a similar pull at a short distance,but that is not the full story.I may be right,I may be wrong,but that's what I found.
peter

Butch LaFonte

Quote from: petersone on May 27, 2009, 05:17:25 AM
Hi Broli and All
I done a simple test with this,I know Butch doesn't agree with me,but,there is more attraction when mags. are apart,also a force x distance thing,when the mags. are together they are using a short distance of air to complete the circuit,they are not to bothered with the iron,when the mags. are apart,large air gap,the mags, will "look" for the iron from much further away.It may look to be a similar pull at a short distance,but that is not the full story.I may be right,I may be wrong,but that's what I found.
peter
Would that apply to this layout?
See attached
Butch

broli

Quote from: petersone on May 27, 2009, 05:17:25 AM
Hi Broli and All
I done a simple test with this,I know Butch doesn't agree with me,but,there is more attraction when mags. are apart,also a force x distance thing,when the mags. are together they are using a short distance of air to complete the circuit,they are not to bothered with the iron,when the mags. are apart,large air gap,the mags, will "look" for the iron from much further away.It may look to be a similar pull at a short distance,but that is not the full story.I may be right,I may be wrong,but that's what I found.
peter

I build a space ship too but you can't see it. I noticed your pattern of going around numerous thread claiming to have done the same thing with negative results without a shroud of evidence, you are starting to look suspicious. I'd rather have someone trust worthy willing to scientifically gather the data.