Yu oscillating Generator ---- Overunity YOG Model

[WattBuilder]

@MileHigh
Ummm,  Of course I did.. I do have it right here you know.
As far as the child shifting the weight? It does to a point but, for the child to gain higher and higher swings. The child must add more energy to the next swing then the previous amount of energy in the first swing, in order to gain.

Plus the only reason that you would have an apparent "gain" for each half-swing if you rotate the magnet by 180 degrees is because you are "forgetting" about the amount of energy you would have to expend to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees against the resistrance of the array's magnetic field.  It's a no-win situation.

MileHigh

I know that Howard is not going to stop, so that's why I suggested that he give himself a year before he calls it quits.  Life is short and I am sure that there are better things that he can do.

MileHigh

What are better things to do ? 

I know !  Try to help the worlds energy crisis and Save lives. That sounds better than arguing with people with a good idea who are trying.

Regards,
Howard

[hartiberlin]

@MILEHIGH Please stop your negativity over here and only read this thread and only post if you have ideas how to enhance the gain effect.

[Cloxxki]

Hi Howard,
It seems they are not arguing with you or your good idea, as much as they are asking better foundation for claims, and more valid (generally accepted) counter-experiments.

I think there is no better helper towards free energy than a sound critic like these 2. They offer you simple modifications of your design, to take away the lion share of doubt regarding the obvious gains displayed. At this point, it is hard to see it's really the array at work.

Arguing really only starts when one party ignores parts of the input from the other, or at least fails to respond to it.

Please understand, that as referenced, the Mylow thing hit this community quite hard. It was not pretty. I was a believer, because I'm naive when it comes to human intentions. I, among hundreds, was left betrayed. We all learned. I am convinced you are not trying to fool us, and the others are surely not alluding to that. Just, that perfect evidence with look different. Perfect of course doesn't exist, but the threshold to start replication will not have been reached for many at this point.

I still believe that permanent magnets can be "fooled" to be used for propulsion, and I hope you're on the track of the code now.

Good luck,

J

[exnihiloest]

Howard:

...
By the same token, Poynt99 agrees with me that it would take energy to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees at the end of each swing.  This is not an error, it simply has to be for things to stay in balance.  You seem to be assuming that I am wrong without testing this yourself. 
...
MileHigh

Hi Milehigh

You are perfectly right. I also said the same at the begining of the thread. And in the absence of experimental proof (that a complete looped perpetual motion would give), I asked WattBuilder for the energy consumed by the actuators for rotating the magnets. I got vague replies outside the point so I had quit the thread because it was no science. I come back today and see it is still at its starting point.

The problem with permanent magnet motors is always the same. A magnet or a magnetic material moves in a magnetic field only if it decreases its magnetic potential, otherwise there is no magnetic force. The magnetic potential is given by the field and the position of the object in the field.
As we cannot have a looped path presenting an endless decreasing magnetic potential because the potential is always the same at the starting point, to loop the movement needs to enhance the potential of the object somewhere at each turn (it is done here by the rotation of the magnets by 180°). But this needs energy, at least as much energy that the object lost in "falling" in the decreasing magnetic potential. The situation is the same with any potentials, as "gravity motors" or with motors mixing gravity and magnetic or electric potentials.
What is funny is that inventors of permanent magnet motors claim to use conventional theory of electromagnetism to describe how they work! It is a proof of ignorance. The equations of conventional physics prohibate obviously such perpetual motions.

A working permanent magnet motor is clearly outside the physics laws. By using only classical electromagnetism, no one can prove such a motor works. I do not say that a permanent magnet motor is impossible. I say that only strong experimental evidences are required to prove it (and then new theories).

[Bulbz]

Howard is using a very inefficient stepper motor, which consumes much more power.

The servo actually contains a brush motor which is controlled by a circuit and governed by a potentiometer, but you're right about it being inefficient though