A new hypothesis...

[Rapadura]

Hello,

I would like to present a new hypothesis that I worked out. This is not a "theory" only a hypothesis that needs to be confirmed or not.

The hypothesis is formulated in these terms:

"A cyclical movement is generated by a given amount of energy. Only a small fraction (let we say 10%) of that amount of energy comes from an electromagnet. Most of the energy that generates this cyclical movement (let we say 90%) is originated from natural sources such as gravity and powerful permanent magnets. So if this cyclical movement is harnessed to generate electricity, it can easily generate the electricity that is needed to restore the 10% provided by the electromagnet. An will be a surplus."

This hypothesis is derived from another hypothesis:

"The repulsion force between a very strong permanent magnet and a weak electromagnet is very strong"

From where I got this second hypothesis? From this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nowIn-QdbE

Are these hypotheses correct? How could we test them?

[Rapadura]

A must see video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCkROMSGG0

This video definitely proves that, with the same amount of electrical energy being sent through an electromagnet, a stronger permanent magnet, of more mass, will be moved further than a weaker permanent magnet of less mass.

In this case, the strength of the repulsion force is strictly proportional to the strength of the permanent magnet.

The only possible conclusion is: overunity can be achieved.

How?

Build a simple motor/generator system (with two batteries: input battery and output battery) with 99% efficiency, only 1% of energy loss, using the weaker permanent magnet in the motor.

Then replace the weaker permanent magnet by the stronger permanent magnet, and the power of the motor, with the same input electricity coming from the same battery, will be much greater, as we see in the video.

So, if we had 99% efficiency before, with the weaker permanent magnet, now, with the stronger, we will have 110% or 120% efficiency in the output.

[petersone]

Hi Rapadura
Interesting vid. but,the neo just makes the thing less inefficient.
Of course I reserve the right to be totally wrong!!!
peter

[Rapadura]

Hi Rapadura
Interesting vid. but,the neo just makes the thing less inefficient.
Of course I reserve the right to be totally wrong!!!
peter

Peter, there is a thing my mind can't fully understand:

Let's say we can do a certain work using only electromagnets. For example, a small "electromagnetic elevator" which rises one meter using only the force of attraction or repulsion between the electromagnets.

If we replace one of the electromagnets by a permanent magnet with exactly the same magnetic field strength than the original electromagnet, we'll be saving a nice amount of electricity. If we use a permanent magnet stronger than the original electromagnet, then the remaining electromagnet can be provided less electricity than before, and become weaker, because it will be compensated be the stronger magnetic field of the permanent magnet. So, its more electricity saved.

It's not difficult to imagine that using the combination of an electromagnet and a permanent magnet, our "eletromagnetic elevator" can consume just 40% of the electricity that it consumed when it used just electromagnets.

That disturbs me. Permanent magnets can simply "give" to us a lot of energy when used in combination with electromagnets. It smells like overunity...

[ramset]

Rapa
Electro/permanent Mags with a twist,by Art Porter [Wiki him]

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8796.msg230199#new

Chet