OK
lets start the debate
Floor
"with a spacing of 22.4282 mm between them."
That's where I stopped reading. Please demonstrate your ability to position magnets with a precision of 1/10000 mm.
TK must have skipped his geritol today....
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SCHERR-TUMICO-OD-1-2-Micrometer-1-10-000th-Inch-Accuracy-Free-Ship-0300-/221305099050
It's just a measurement reading. No exact significance was placed on the figure by anyone but you, TK.
Push your glasses up off the end of your nose, take a deep breath and read on.....(moot inquiry alert).....You are still capable of being educated, are you not?
TS
Quote from: TechStuf on November 06, 2013, 11:32:30 PM
TK must have skipped his geritol today....
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SCHERR-TUMICO-OD-1-2-Micrometer-1-10-000th-Inch-Accuracy-Free-Ship-0300-/221305099050 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/SCHERR-TUMICO-OD-1-2-Micrometer-1-10-000th-Inch-Accuracy-Free-Ship-0300-/221305099050)
It's just a measurement reading. No exact significance was placed on the figure by anyone but you, TK.
Push your glasses up off the end of your nose, take a deep breath and read on.....(moot inquiry alert).....You are still capable of being educated, are you not?
TS
Hey, TS... can't you tell the difference between an INCH and a MILLIMETER? I have micrometer calipers that measure to the tenthousandth of an INCH myself and I know how to use them. A ten-thousandth of a MILLIMETER is quite a bit smaller than that, since there are 25.4 millimeters to the inch.
"No exact significance was placed on the figure by anyone but you, TK."
Er... nope, someone put that exact figure into the PDF and, by implication, asked me to believe it. But I can't, without some evidence that the person citing the value can actually make measurements of magnet position to that precision and accuracy. Just a measurement thing... well, I can recall a certain very expensive spacecraft that missed its target, Mars, completely because of a "measurement thing". Measurements and accuracy are important, and false precision is just that: false.
And I learn something every day. Don't you? Good grief, what if Overunity actually needs 22.4283 mm spacing instead of 22.4282 mm?
You've made my point! Your anal retentiveness precludes learning opportunities because you are JADED. So jaded in fact, that you really seem to believe that a measurement unit mistake of 1/10,000th of an inch vs. 1/10,000th of a millimeter on a wooden model could be an overunity deal breaker. Of course you didn't even make it far enough to see the model, or investigate the concept as you abandoned the story with prejudice well beforehand. Of course that's what you get for popping your head in to a topic merely to make sure it still rattles.
Tsk, tsk...
How unscientific.....or should I have said, how very establishment scientific of you...
The Hubble telescope supposedly went up with a costly unit measurement communication mistake. With you pioneering the team, it wouldn't have gone up at all.
8)
TS
Well machineing shims to a tolerance of 1 micron is no great feat these day's. so if it came to the nitty gritty,it could be done-until you get a good temp change in the system-then all bets are off.
I dont think a magnetic field is going to change much over 1 microm though,so near enough would be good enough lol.
When it comes to perminant magnet's,nothing would supprise me.
I have just built a coil that outputs DC only,regardles of the input.
By useing PM's in the right configuration,we get only a DC output,without rectifiers.
Fancy that- PM's as rectifiers.
Now thats pretty useful.
So for the record.
TK
The distance measurements are calculated as 1/4 of the circumference of the pulleys. The calculator I use puts out a lot higher precision than is in any way meaningful under the conditions of this experiment. Use of the very long and/or repeating decimals, I usually let these stay within the calculator. If a calculation comes out to 4 or 5 decimal points I may use it intact.
Please find all of the errors in the procedures, math, graphs etc. you wish to. That is why the experiment has been posted here. But lets let a bean counter, work out the grammar and punctuation errors at a later time.
Thanks for the input.
floor
Fresh start
Let the debates continue
cheers
floor
Quote from: TechStuf on November 07, 2013, 03:00:36 AM
You've made my point! Your anal retentiveness precludes learning opportunities because you are JADED. So jaded in fact, that you really seem to believe that a measurement unit mistake of 1/10,000th of an inch vs. 1/10,000th of a millimeter on a wooden model could be an overunity deal breaker. Of course you didn't even make it far enough to see the model, or investigate the concept as you abandoned the story with prejudice well beforehand. Of course that's what you get for popping your head in to a topic merely to make sure it still rattles.
Tsk, tsk...
How unscientific.....or should I have said, how very establishment scientific of you...
The Hubble telescope supposedly went up with a costly unit measurement communication mistake. With you pioneering the team, it wouldn't have gone up at all.
8)
TS
Wrong, my friend. Had there been someone "anal" like me checking the work, the mistake in focus would have been caught and corrected before launch, saving many millions of dollars and months of time.
Just so you know, in two previous jobs I've had in the "free energy" field, my care and caution and skepticism has indeed saved nearly three million dollars that would have been spent on bogus "research" had I not caught errors and bitched about them.
The issue of what to do with all those extra digits that a calculator spits out is a known one with a clear and straight forward solution. It is simply this: Any answer that you get CANNOT be more precise than the LEAST precise figure that goes into the calculation. This is the issue of _significant digits_. When there is a physical measurement concerned, this is especially important.
When I see a result with more than the legitimate number of "sig digs" I know this right away: it is wrong. It might be close to being correct... but as the Hubble experience shows, close is not good enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures)
So you are asking me to accept some kind of advanced discussion when the person engaging in the discussion is ignoring a basic, widely accepted and taught, fundamental principle of arithmetic. What else is that person ignoring? Stuff that I can't catch because of my own ignorance, that will lead me astray and bite me later on, like the Hubble bit its designers?
Please, people, let us try to get the basic, undisputable stuff right, before we start dealing with the more speculative advanced concepts.
Quote from: Floor on November 07, 2013, 11:30:47 AM
So for the record.
TK
The distance measurements are calculated as 1/4 of the circumference of the pulleys. The calculator I use puts out a lot higher precision than is in any way meaningful under the conditions of this experiment. Use of the very long and/or repeating decimals, I usually let these stay within the calculator. If a calculation comes out to 4 or 5 decimal points I may use it intact.
Please find all of the errors in the procedures, math, graphs etc. you wish to. That is why the experiment has been posted here. But lets let a bean counter, work out the grammar and punctuation errors at a later time.
Thanks for the input.
floor
And thank you for your reasonable response. Please see my answer above; you can determine the correct number of decimal places to use very easily.
Some of us remember Mylow, showing videos where he is measuring magnet positions to the "hundredth of a millimeter" using a digital caliper, telling people they had to be that accurate ... then placing them on a disk and gluing them down by hand. LOL!
@ tinselkoala
I understand that it is a difficult, frustrating and time consuming affair, to deal with fraudulent / delusional people. I have spent considerably more time studying topics / threads on the OU forum, than in posting upon it. I appreciate the energy others have committed to keeping the forum a reasonably sane (hopefully not too sane) and honest place to explore and share ideas.
Thank you again for your time and input
cheers
floor
PS
I will do my best to respond to all inquiries, error discoveries, and suggestion as promptly as I am able.
also "thank you" to the others posting here.
@Floor,
I punched some numbers into my calculator and came up with a value of 95.12836% in favor of TK's explanations on Significant Digits. So I have to admit that he is 100% correct. Or 1 x 102% at least. But all of this is just IMHO (in my humble oMinion). But enough of my sycophantiphications...
So there is at least one thing "wrong" with your report. However, I would challenge everyone to count the things that are "right" with your report. I haven't even read it and see that it is an amazing example of what some would call a "magnetic wind tunnel." That is to say it is an experimental test bed that was designed to examine a physical behavior with the hopes of finding some characteristic that can be exploited to the advantage of problem solving. Well done! I thank you and give a very big tip of my hat to you sir! I remember when you first posted only the pictures of your test device and plans for the experiments you intended to perform with it. And now you have returned as promised to present the protocol and results of your tests, open source no less. For our critical review. Again, well done!
Your efforts deserve our admiration to say the least. I believe they also deserve the critical review that you invite!
Again, all this is just IMHO.
M.
We must be mindful of the observation of those two learned physists,
Reeves & Mortimer, that 82.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Hello Floor,
This is an intriguing topic. Presenting it in open forum (especially here) deserves great praise and is courageous. And thank you TechStuf for facing down TK ... though recognizing NPD to be a tough disorder to control.
Keep going Floor. We're with you!
gme
Request
Don't miss the drawings at the end of the last PDF file post, blank space at the end of the text, may make it appear to be the end of the file, before the drawings come into the readers view.
The experiment / pdf files can be posted to any other forums a reader may wish to.
Also, please refrain from derogatory remarks etc. (if you can) even in the face of others poor judgement in this regard.
thanks
floor
Quote from: tinman on November 07, 2013, 03:30:41 AM
Well machineing shims to a tolerance of 1 micron is no great feat these day's. so if it came to the nitty gritty,it could be done-until you get a good temp change in the system-then all bets are off.
I dont think a magnetic field is going to change much over 1 microm though,so near enough would be good enough lol.
When it comes to perminant magnet's,nothing would supprise me.
I have just built a coil that outputs DC only,regardles of the input.
By useing PM's in the right configuration,we get only a DC output,without rectifiers.
Fancy that- PM's as rectifiers.
Now thats pretty useful.
Sounds very interesting, could you give details :)
1,600 views of this current posting + 8,796 views of the original posting, but I am still looking for error checking and feed back from a reviewer. Is any reader, considering doing a check of the work ?
cheers
Floor
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 07, 2013, 02:10:32 AM
Hey, TS... can't you tell the difference between an INCH and a MILLIMETER? I have micrometer calipers that measure to the tenthousandth of an INCH myself and I know how to use them. A ten-thousandth of a MILLIMETER is quite a bit smaller than that, since there are 25.4 millimeters to the inch.
"No exact significance was placed on the figure by anyone but you, TK."
Er... nope, someone put that exact figure into the PDF and, by implication, asked me to believe it. But I can't, without some evidence that the person citing the value can actually make measurements of magnet position to that precision and accuracy. Just a measurement thing... well, I can recall a certain very expensive spacecraft that missed its target, Mars, completely because of a "measurement thing". Measurements and accuracy are important, and false precision is just that: false.
And I learn something every day. Don't you? Good grief, what if Overunity actually needs 22.4283 mm spacing instead of 22.4282 mm?
For the sake of the argument lets just say we can vary the field strength on either or both magnets with a wire coil and a little juice and that will bring the desired fields into play. This variance is already done in actual circuits so let's just conceed it and move on to the next situation.
After considering the coil arrangement, why not instead wrap the center of a bar magnet and place it between the magnets. Then vary the N field (zero magnetic field supposedly) positive and/or negative to bump the two side magnets. Sure would seem easier than constantly keeping tabs on the variance of the setup proposed. You could find a voltage/ac or dc and a frequency (kinda be like a Floyd Sweet basis), you could measure output with your magnet rectifier to find (and I like this) the SWEET spot.
edited for grammer
I finally got around to writing a little program to calculate graph areas, and used it to recalc. the areas of the input and output
strokes from the measurement sets. The value of the "total gain" calc. came out as 19.193 % of the input as opposed to the
original figure of 19.131%
(The original area calcs. were arrived at by hand counting and estimating tiny graph squares/fragments duh !).
Over all 'm, I'm fairly well pleased to find the accuracy of my original area estimations were so close, (only 0.062% off ! ).
Please find the 2 attached files "SLBIG.PDF" and "ROBIG.PDF." They contain outputs from the graphing program I wrote.
The "beta program" doesn't do the graphics yet, (only the calcs at this point).
I will be republishing the latest versions of the "Work from 2 magnets" files when they are completed. (soon ? )
Cheers
floor
I am starting a new title for this topic "Work from 2 magnets 2 > 19% output"
This stage of the project has been completed.
Yes I think the tests demonstrate a method of "Over Unity", what ever that means.
Cheers again
floor
Was still learning measurements methods at this point.
floor
Did not find O.U. here.
Learned a lot.
floor