Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.

[petersone]

Hi Broli
That's not very nice!!Every comment I have made is based on tests I've done.All comparative,not absolute.This one was done on a test rig with a non magnetic 6in disc with 2 pairs of magnets mounted vertically about 2in apart on the circumference,one pair almost together,one pair 1in apart,the disc is free to move,bringing in a 1/2in iron bar on a centre line always attracted the 2 mags the two mags that were apart,even when the iron was brought in nearer to the two adjacent mags,the disc turned to attract the two separated mags.
To make sure it was not a difference in the "power" of the mags,I changed them around,same result,all 4 mags. were 1/4x1/4 neo's,with a steel backing on each pair,if you feel that is not a valid test,please tell me why.
I never make negative comments,I jusy say what I have found.
peter

[Butch LaFonte]

Hey you guys,
I can't believe after all the tests video on our Youtube site of different aspects of this design that no one has seen the overunity potential in this sequence of operation.
The bars can be moved back together with virtually no work and work is done when they separate.
The main magnet bars move out with less work when the element are together and pull in doing more work when the bars are separated.
Maybe I should put some fish line on it and everyone will start buying plans for it.
See this link > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8lgEUJXKc&feature=channel_page

[petersone]

Hi Butch
Forget the fishing line,you are not in that club,thank god,looking at the sim,so I understand it right,gain and loss.Gain is when the mags,come together and when the bars separate.Loss.When the bars are brought together and the mags. are separated.Have I got that right? if so it's a case of if gains>losses.Yes?
This is basically the fanner? If so I will think some more.
peter

[Butch LaFonte]

Hi Butch
Forget the fishing line,you are not in that club,thank god,looking at the sim,so I understand it right,gain and loss.Gain is when the mags,come together and when the bars separate.Loss.When the bars are brought together and the mags. are separated.Have I got that right? if so it's a case of if gains>losses.Yes?
This is basically the fanner? If so I will think some more.
peter

We already showed in the first video that the mags pull in stronger when the bars are seperated. Then the bars are pushed together, but no repulsion exists because the bar ends are in sliding contact with the Mags surface. No work to speak of required there.
Then the mags seperate with the bars all grouped together. The video shows the mags pull back with less work when they are together, why we can't say for sure at this time.
Now that the mags have pulled back, the bars are allowed to seperate and do work.
Now the mags are pulled in again and the cycle repeats.
Yes it is the fanner, but with a modification, the bars are moved back together in sliding contact to eliminate repulsion between them. When the bars are in sliding contact no fields are present in the air gap between the bar ends and the mags and that is where the repulsion exists.
The great majority of free work comes from the bars seperating.
Butch

[lostcauses10x]

Use long magnets, not disks. May or may not make a diferance.  If it is just the together and at a distance test on a balance such may show what is shown in the first post of this thread. The thin disks most likely would not show such.

Hi Broli
That's not very nice!!Every comment I have made is based on tests I've done.All comparative,not absolute.This one was done on a test rig with a non magnetic 6in disc with 2 pairs of magnets mounted vertically about 2in apart on the circumference,one pair almost together,one pair 1in apart,the disc is free to move,bringing in a 1/2in iron bar on a centre line always attracted the 2 mags the two mags that were apart,even when the iron was brought in nearer to the two adjacent mags,the disc turned to attract the two separated mags.
To make sure it was not a difference in the "power" of the mags,I changed them around,same result,all 4 mags. were 1/4x1/4 neo's,with a steel backing on each pair,if you feel that is not a valid test,please tell me why.
I never make negative comments,I jusy say what I have found.
peter