The Ring magnet drawing is not for showing overunity work but to show the basic principle of Pseudo Solid operation. It's shows how a magnetic field can move with it's magnet down a piece of iron without any drag. Any drag that may result is from eddy current drag and can be eliminated many different ways such as different materials that resist eddy current formation and also by laminating the material in razor thin layers. The second drawing attached shows how the Pseudo Solid principle can be applied in a system for overunity.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
@GammaRayBurst
I think I might enjoy doing a few drawings that explain your work on this topic (as I understand your work).
I'm thinking also of phrasing a few of the "rules" which define and govern the principles (as I understand them).
If I may have your permission to do so, and for your review / corrections, I will [post them here ?
Cheers
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 08, 2013, 06:19:54 PM
@GammaRayBurst
I think I might enjoy doing a few drawings that explain your work on this topic (as I understand your work).
I'm thinking also of phrasing a few of the "rules" which define and govern the principles (as I understand them).
If I may have your permission to do so, and for your review / corrections, I will [post them here ?
Cheers
floor
Floor, I would very much appreciate you doing that, yes please go ahead! I need all the help with this that I can get. Thank you so much, Butch
Some explanation of the Pseudo Solid principles.
Cheers
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 09, 2013, 08:38:11 PM
Some explanation of the Pseudo Solid principles.
Cheers
floor
Floor, great job on the papers you did! That will help people so much understand the principle. There is one area that you need to cover though.
It is when you have two magnets with their poles north poles side by side and in between two plates and the plate set is attracting another plate set that has no magnets in it. Then when that empty plate set is flush with the magnets plate set you slide one magnet in Pseudo Solid fashion to the empty plate set and then the two plate sets go into repulsion to each other and move apart.
Floor you did a nice job with the principles and the drawings but the missing piece is the measurements of those principles. What it takes to be useful is "a small force that can release a larger force". I did not find that in any of my measurements. But in your last drawing there might be some hope because it is like the Flynn parallel path principle so if you got measurements to bear out that easily moving the magnets on wheels (with measurements) will activate a larger force and then you are not stuck at that point then OU will be possible.
I have a matchbox car with the body removed that has a low floor and when I put a 1/2 inch neo on the floor it will stick to the metal cabinet door in the horizontal position but
when the car points to the floor it drops down to the floor but
if I increase the magnetic field with a harddrive arc shaped much stronger
magnet it just hangs there and will not drop. Butch claims that is due to friction
but in the later case the magnet is heavier and maybe could overcome the eddy currents
but it does not.
Norman
@gammarayburst
No problem. I'll insert another explanation / drawing.
Cheers
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 11, 2013, 10:42:34 AM
@gammarayburst
No problem. I'll insert another explanation / drawing.
Cheers
floor
Floor, Please also mention that eddy currents can be eliminated with the use of eddy current resistant ferromagnetic materials and several other ways.
Thanks so much Butch
@ Norman6538
Yes I agree, you are correct, in stating that measurements need to be taken and presented.
Yes I agree, you are correct, no measurements were "here" presented, that is, until you presented your match box
car experiment.
As to why your match box car didn't roll down the refrigerator with the stronger although heavier neo magnet, but did
roll down with a weaker although lighter magnet?
You have just presented measurements, restated butches theory, and stated your own theory.
Your observations?
1. The weaker and lighter magnet, under your test conditions, did not create more resistance to the rolling of the match box car than
the combined weight of magnet and car.
2. The stronger although and heavier magnet, under your test conditions, created more resistance to the rolling of the match box car than the combined weight of the car and the stronger / heavier magnet could over come.
Your conclusions ?
1. The lack of movement of the stronger and heavier magnet was due to eddy currents and not friction.
Have I understood your experiment / observations and conclusions correctly ?
Please understand, I'm not trying to "put words into your mouth".
My observations, suggestions, comments
OBSERVATIONS
1. Eddy currents can only be produced, under the conditions in your experiment WHILE one of the magnet is in MOTION.
There fore, friction MUST be the cause of the NON motion during the stronger / heavier magnet and car test, unless there is
some unknown or factor not presented in your findings / test.
SUGGESTIONS
1. Modify your experiment by using a metal surface (a carpenters saw? ) that can be easily rotated from a plumb
orientation into a level orientation.
2. Suspend each of the "test vehicles" :) from the saw, while the saw is level in two planes (broad sides up and down)
3. Tape, tie or rubber band some weights to the cars until gravity pulls them from the saw.
4. Reposition the saw into a plumb orientation and repeat step 3.
5. Optionally, pull each car and magnet arrangement along a metal surface and then pull each one directly (at 90 degrees) from
the metal surface.
6. Note under which conditions a greater weight was required to move the car and magnet.
7. Post the observations.
COMMENTS
1. Your "experiment" and it's presentation could have been valuable to this discussion, and could easily have added valid
information (confirmation or disproof) to the discussion, but did not.
2. Instead, (excepting your assertion, an assertion made repeatedly in the other title for this topic ?) that measurements
need to be made, has detracted from the discussion.
3. Elementary experimentation, as well as conventional scientific explanation, easily demonstrate the validity of the pseudo solid
principles. Note I did not say Over unity.
4. Your "experiments" conclusions are wrong, you methods and observations are incomplete and flawed.
5. The stronger magnet must have crushed the wheels of the hot wheels car into contact with the car's body
preventing their rotation ?
6. Poor or worse yet, phoney measurements, are misleading and there fore worse than no measurements.
7. A GOOD critic is valuable, indeed an asset, please be one.
Thanks
floor
Quote from: norman6538 on December 11, 2013, 09:23:14 AM
Floor you did a nice job with the principles and the drawings but the missing piece is the measurements of those principles. What it takes to be useful is "a small force that can release a larger force". I did not find that in any of my measurements. But in your last drawing there might be some hope because it is like the Flynn parallel path principle so if you got measurements to bear out that easily moving the magnets on wheels (with measurements) will activate a larger force and then you are not stuck at that point then OU will be possible.
I have a matchbox car with the body removed that has a low floor and when I put a 1/2 inch neo on the floor it will stick to the metal cabinet door in the horizontal position but
when the car points to the floor it drops down to the floor but
if I increase the magnetic field with a harddrive arc shaped much stronger
magnet it just hangs there and will not drop. Butch claims that is due to friction
but in the later case the magnet is heavier and maybe could overcome the eddy currents
but it does not.
Norman
Norman, a magnet can not be held in place by eddy currents when it is standing still. Eddy currents only happen when their is movement of the magnet relative to the the ferromagnetic material. I have shown countless times with video that a 1" grade 48 NIB magnet will move with the slight push of the finger when balanced between two bars in a "floating" position. The magnet was even brushing up against the bars a slight amount and still moved with ease. Pseudo Solid movement with very little work is real. You just need to build a rigid precision fixture to illustrate it. The car on frig door is not the way to do it because the magnet is not floating with equal and opposite forces on it's poles. Also, I have illustrated many ways the magnets can be moved from repulsion to attraction one at a time through the end of the bars to reset the cycle. I don't have the money any more to build this, maybe someone on the site will. Also, eddy currents can be reduced to next to nothing by using the right materials and fabrication.
Butch
Floor here is my modified experiment.
2 identical matchbox car floors (no bodies) should have the same friction
on a ramp. The car closest to camera with extra magnets and one
under the floor and thus closer to the metal and also with
extra weight stays in place while the other
car with less magnets and less weight rolls down the ramp. why?
I expected the heavier car floor to go down the ramp but instead
the lighter car went down the ramp. So I assume the factor was
the magnetic force that held the heavier car in place.
Double checking I swapped car floors to make sure there was no performance difference
in one car over the other and the results were the same.
Webby1, good point. I'll work up something else to check the friction issue.
Butch has claimed several times that friction is the problem.
Norman
@All readers
PseudoSolid principles 2nd edition
cheers
@Norman6538
Great ! better test methodology. Buy you are still changing more than 1 variable at a time.
1. weight of vehicle
2. strength of magnet
3. friction on axles
It's impossible to do analysis of the results with out precise details of the weight change / friction change
/ magnet strength change or...............
A simplification of the experiment, that is to say reduce the number of things that change during the
experiment to one change at a time.
suggestions
1. Use a different rolling device. The friction at the wheels and bearings MUST increase with increased force pressing upon them.
In your experiment, both the stronger magnet and the greater weight increase this friction. The use of stronger wheel and
axle sets will not prevent the friction from changing during the varying conditions, however the amount of change in force you
cause by swapping magnets (while using most styles of axle sets) would be insignificant under the conditions of your
measurements. (not so with hot wheels)
2. Add weight to the lighter weaker magnet (on the top) until it is the same weight as the stronger heavier magnet. Use a non magnetic
material, maybe lead sinkers taped onto it. This will eliminate one unneeded variable when you swap magnets. Under the
conditions of the experiment a SMALL difference in the weights of the magnets is probably not very significant. The differing
magnets strengths, is I suspect the major variation.
One additional experiment you might try.
Using a thick (new) roll of aluminum foil.
1. Check to see if one of your strong neo magnets is attracted to it.
2. While holding the roll of foil in hand, with it's long axis vertical, drop the same magnet
through the center of the cardboard tube / aluminum foil roll.
cheers
Apologies, I missed including the last JPG drawing in the Pseudo Solid explained - 2 file
Please find attached Pseudo Solid explained - 3 PDF
Cheers again
floor
Three tests on the new setup.
1. 1/4 tilt with no magnets or weights and it slides downhill.
2. 1/2 tilt with a hard drive neo and it does not slide downhill.
3. 1/2 as in 2 but 3.5 lb brick on top and it slides downhill.
So clearly with these ballbearing wheels if friction was a factor
then 3 would not slide downhill.
I got the wheels from Lowes which are designed to put into drawer
slides. Each one has numerous balls inside the white plastic wheel.
I used kerosene to lubricate them and the all turned and spun
freely.
Photo attached, sorry for the poor lighting and color.
Let the smears begin.
Norman
Norman, Webby,
Although the bearing rollers and truck wheels seems free of friction, they do have some friction in them especially the rubbery truck wheels when they deform under load.
Norman, your 3rd experiment proofs the concept. The brick(it can probably be a much lighter object) provides enough downward force to overcome the static friction and allows the cart to move. The magnet does not provide much downward force given it's small size, but it creates a strong pull onto the steel surface which creates friction on the rollers. You should move the cart(with only the magnet) with your hand and see if it opposes your hand.
Alex,
Best regards
@GammaRayBurst
Here are 2 PDF files and my congratulations !
Thanks for all the hard work
Cheers
floor
@webby
Same piece of steel, same incline, the truck did not move with the magnet but did move almost as easily with the 415g on top as without.
The Truck would move with the magnet but it was like it was in mud, adding more weight to the truck did not help.
Yes, "the truck did not move" "The truck would move" If you try the aluminum foil roll and neo magnet experiment
(I posted earlier in this topic), you would see a magnet moving like it's stuck in mud,and yet aluminum is not magnetic.
cheers
floor
@webby
A strong magnet will come to a complete stop, some times even go back wards, then reverse direction and speed up, drag along the side of the tube, slowing down and then speeding up again.
The eddy currents producing the magnetic force, from within the aluminum, are caused by the magnet's strength, distance from the aluminum and the speed of the magnets travel.
I do see your point though. Counter force is only being produced in the test track, if and when the magnet is moving. If the motion stops because of the eddy current magnetic force, then the magnet should start moving again, because the eddy currents died off.
The stoppage is caused by friction, assisted by the motion damping from the eddy current magnetic force, opposing the build up of momentum.
Only the momentum of the magnet is opposed due to the eddy currents. A brick can build momentum, a brick with the magnet in place
will build momentum only until the eddy currents and increased friction from their pull equalize the force present in the moving brick.
If you had a long ramp and a brick of the the right weight, you could see the brick get moving along really fast, and then stop briefly, like someone put on the brakes. Then it would star moving again.
Cheers
The ring magnet tests shows so clearly that the iron rod will move freely through the magnetic field after it passes the end of the rod and moves into the middle length of the bar. No car test needed. The magnet needs to be in a floating position in these tests. Equal but opposite forces on the magnet poles.
If you have to do a car test, glue the top of one car to the top of another identical car then put the two cars between two plates in a near floating condition so all pull force on the cars will be equal but opposite. Then it will roll!
Butch
I found that I could have two rods touching each other and still have them pass through as if they were one,, many chained together actually and when one fell off of the chain underneath I could pick it back up and place it on top,, and scavenge that released magnetic potential.
I have played with magnetic forces a lot, and with all the time I have spent playing with magnets I am still not tired of them.
Floor,
Yes I have done many tests playing with eddy currents and tried all sorts of materials in all sorts of orientations,, I have not had any "back up" so that is interesting. I have had them slow down to almost a stop and then speed up again but I considered that a function of saturation and stuff. I have also played with shear field effects,, they are interesting.
Webby1,
Thanks for the input, it's a great help. I wanted to also tell everyone about a powdered iron that is available that through a special process causes each little sphere of iron to have a thin plastic coating and no current can flow from one sphere to the next. This eliminates eddy currents. Also the way transformer cores are stacked in razor thin layers and separated by a non-electrical conductor paper or coating just as thin will greatly reduce eddy currents due to the high electrical resistance of the thin metal.
So eddy currents are not a problem with Pseudo Solid operation. the only problem I see is that the .005" air gap between each pole and the plate require a very precision and rigid machine. Please keep working with floor and myself so we can prove Pseudo Solid Principle is a key to taping free energy.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
Webby1 said,"I found that I could have two rods touching each other and still have them pass through as if they were one,, many chained together actually and when one fell off of the chain underneath I could pick it back up and place it on top."
Webby1, This is where I got the name "Pseudo Solid" because the magnet see's the rod as one solid rod, not two rods.
Butch
The Lafonte reciprocating principle
To make a motor device we start with two bars with magnets together then
1. easily sliding one magnet to the other bar makes the bars
separate via the lafonte repel and work 1 is done
2. then sliding that magnet out of range will stop the repel and
the bars will attract back together and work 2 is done.
3. then sliding the same magnet back into the repel position
and the bars separate again, then repeat at 2.
If the force required to do the two slides in 2 and 3 is less than
the work done by the repel in 2 and attract in 3 then we
have a working OU motor.
You could take a quick shortcut and measure the forces/work done
to assure yourself that it can or can't be done.
May this be your BIG Christmas present this year Butch.
Norman
I think that there are many embodiment possibilities for the principles. I just generated a "simple" one in the drawing set (15 steps in the cycle). He Ha
I have been considering possible optimal lamination orientations. I think that because of the nature of the needed movements during the magnet reorientations to line up for the power stroke, proper design can give exceptionally good results.
There are a number of refinements in terms of the geometry of the bar components that would optimize magnetic saturations.
All together, I'm pretty well certain that even a minor variation of the device in the LaFonte engine drawings would self run, if the (lineup of magnet orientations for the power stroke) is done at very slow speeds.
I mean even with out the use of laminations etc.
But I don't see any way to make the principles run linear / non reversing and with out latching. I'm just saying that at this point ( I ) don't see it, someone else may figure it out, but I think latching / right angle interactions / and reversing motions may be the essential nature of the beast.
Like I have said before congratulations.
Floor
Even while spending considerable force in the magnet set up for the power stroke, I think there's plenty left over.
Mr. Lafonte, just wondering if you ever had any purely magnetic motor designs based on your switcher?
Quote from: phoneboy on December 13, 2013, 06:52:44 PM
Mr. Lafonte, just wondering if you ever had any purely magnetic motor designs based on your switcher?
Phoneboy, I would have to go through my files but I believe I have around 20 to 25 designs based on our Pseudo Solid operation.
Please call me Butch.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
@webby
Yes I have done many tests playing with eddy currents and tried all sorts of materials in all sorts of orientations,, I have not had any "back up" so that is interesting.
The backing up is a bounce. Very short and brief. If you let the falling neo mag gain speed before it enters to aluminum tube, you may feel
the bounce with the hand that is holding the tube.
cheers
floor
@Webby
Reading back through this thread I realize, I was pretty rude to you with my sarcastic "yes", sorry. Also to Gammarayburst for muddying up his topic with a bit of bad vibe in doing so. Please accept my apologies.
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 16, 2013, 12:01:09 PM
@Webby
Reading back through this thread I realize, I was pretty rude to you with my sarcastic "yes", sorry. Also to Gammarayburst for muddying up his topic with a bit of bad vibe in doing so. Please accept my apologies.
floor
Floor, thanks so much for the second file, but I don't understand the sequence of operation? Where repulsion or attraction is at any given time?
See the attached drawing.
Option 1
Notice that the magnetic fields of the two long sectioned bars would be distributed in the air for their full length.
So the field strength of the two magnets is spread out and at the right end of the bars would be very weak as compared to the two magnets being between only four bar sections.
Now move the two far right end bar sections by pulling them off (magnetic field is weak here) and move them up to the far left end and the two magnets now have a shorter path for the magnetic field and will pull the bars sections in. Now move in Pseudo Solid fashion the two magnets to the left and repeat the sequence.
Option 2
After moving the two magnets to the far left, the two iron bars of one magnet will be in repulsion to the two iron bars of the other magnet.
Let them repel and move the repelling magnet back to the right end and it's field will be stronger that the field of the long bar end sections and it will be pulled to the long bars section. Now move the two magnets to the left down the length of the long bars in Pseudo Solid fashion to the left end and repeat the sequence.
Note: The longer the length of the sectioned bars, the weaker the magnetic field will be at the far right end.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
@Webby
I like the design you demonstrated to, and I'd like to see it built.
cheers
floor
@gammarayburst
Regarding the second file ("LaFonte engine") I uploaded. There are no written descriptions of the forces and movements in the drawings. The file was intended to be a companion to the "Pseudo Solid explained" pdf. I thought the interactions would be clear to some one who had just familiarized their self with the principles as stated in the other file. Other wise the "engine file" would need to explain every thing already present in the Pseudo solid file again ? Might be better if a reader has to put at least a little 2 + 2 into it. Working some of it out for one's self, I think, gives at least a little guarantee that one has understood ?
floor
@ Gammarayburst
Nice and clear explanation in that last embodyment of the PS principles. (Your last drawings above)
cheers
Pseudo Solid Operation With Varied Field Distribution
Butch
Quote from: webby1 on December 16, 2013, 04:22:11 PM
This is the idea, but this one is using attractive mode instead.
When the upper magnet is over the piece of steel with the other magnet on it they loose most if not all of the attraction for the other piece of steel, move the single piece of steel out and over to the other side but with a fan type of separation, touching on the side away from the rotating magnet, move the piece of steel with both magnets over it forward and then slide the magnet over to the other piece of steel,, the rotating magnet seems to stay still and a slight pull brings the two pieces of steel together and then the rotating magnet moves over to the piece with the other magnet on it,, rinse and repeat.
modButch is the end position
modButch2 is the start position, so from here you slide the end magnet over to the other piece and the gap will close and then the rotating magnet seems to like to move over to that piece of steel.
It may just be silly idea,, but a distraction is a distraction :)
Webby,
I'm having a little trouble seeing the operation of the rotating magnet and how it is structured? Could you make a short video of it operating?
Thanks, Butch
Gammarayburst
Here is the most recent draft, again for your review / corrections / preferences.
Please find the attached file "Pseudo solid explained -5" PDF
@ all readers
This last draft gives additional principles and explanations of them. Educational to novices, good perhaps as a refresher to the more experienced. I hope it is clear and simply stated enough that it will be a helpful reference.
sincerely
floor
@Webby
I think your last photos made it clear, I can see the cycle. cool
floor
See attached,
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
Quote from: webby1 on December 18, 2013, 05:29:42 PM
Floor,
Glad I could clear it up a bit :)
Butch,
I have not tried this exact setup, but ones that were close had the feedback from the field dilation equally displaced against both sets of moving magnets.
In other words,, the two moving magnets would push each other out of the way and away from each other.
I have most of my magnets tied up in a few arrays that I am playing with,, they are fun,, interesting is that when you stack 2 together in attraction the outside field gets weaker :) Nothing new,, just fun.
What was the air gap between the magnet poles and the steel? I'm referring to the magnets that moved in Pseudo Solid fashion.
See attached
@Gammarayburst
Pseudo Solid explained -6 PDF is uploaded below, I think this draft is fairly complete / comprehensive. Also spell corrected etc.
@ All readers this "last" draft of the Pseudo Solid Explained PDF is intended to help BEGINNERS to understand what's
at work in Butch's work / designs. The file may be useful to intermediate, or even expert readers as well. The previous
versions / drafts were incomplete works.
Please down load this last version for a full set of simplified explanations of the principles at work in P. S. interactions.
Cheers
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 19, 2013, 05:51:35 PM
@Gammarayburst
Pseudo Solid explained -6 PDF is uploaded below, I think this draft is fairly complete / comprehensive. Also spell corrected etc.
@ All readers this "last" draft of the Pseudo Solid Explained PDF is intended to help BEGINNERS to understand what's
at work in Butch's work / designs. The file may be useful to intermediate, or even expert readers as well. The previous
versions / drafts were incomplete works.
Please down load this last version for a full set of simplified explanations of the principles at work in P. S. interactions.
Cheers
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 19, 2013, 05:51:35 PM
@Gammarayburst
Pseudo Solid explained -6 PDF is uploaded below, I think this draft is fairly complete / comprehensive. Also spell corrected etc.
@ All readers this "last" draft of the Pseudo Solid Explained PDF is intended to help BEGINNERS to understand what's
at work in Butch's work / designs. The file may be useful to intermediate, or even expert readers as well. The previous
versions / drafts were incomplete works.
Please down load this last version for a full set of simplified explanations of the principles at work in P. S. interactions.
Cheers
floor
Floor, Thank you so much for your time and effort. This will truly help people understand this principle. It is so kind of you to done this. Thanks again Floor.
Butch
@Gammarayburst
My pleasure sir
Creating the document is giving me a refresher in magnetic s, and more clarity on the pseudo solid principles as well.
floor
please find attached "pseudo solid explained -7" PDF
@Gammarayburst
Looking at your Ring magnet example, which one might consider as the essential / pure exemplification of a P. S. engine, I think it
marvelous that it takes advantage of what might be generally considered an "obstacle" in design. That is to say, decreased magnetic
strength at distance.
cheers
floor
@All
floors best wishes for the holidays :)
Quote from: Floor on December 20, 2013, 07:31:27 PM
@All
floors best wishes for the holidays :)
Floor, Please explain???
This really makes the project look bad???
@GammaRayBurst
@All readers
For the record, the movie poster style JPG (Floor's latching overunity pseudo solid engine monstrosity)
was only intended as holiday humor (about my own failed design) and was / is not an attempt or
statement intended to be critical of Pseudo solid principle, nor LaFonte designs. at all.
I started off, to look for / generate a set of magnet interactions that would cycle around
back to the same starting point in the mag arrangements, (with pseudo solid principles in mind).
I did arrive at a cycle, 16 steps later. I was actually pretty pleased with it (at around 3 in the
morning). While the "design" does utilize magnets in suspension between 2 surfaces, it does
not utilize decreasing magnet strength at distance. And is there fore not entirely or truly a Pseudo
Solid based design. This "design" my (floor's) design ATTEMPT, was / is a flop. It fails in numerous
ways. Rather a spectacular fail.... about the only good things I could say about it, I said with the poster.
Because "FLOPSEM" does embody so many of the problems one may encounter in attempting a
magnet engine (problems elegantly reduced or eliminated in a true pseudo sold design), the
flopsem is a good.... bad example.
My sincere apology for the misunderstanding and I hope this has cleared things up.
sincerely
floor
Floor, Thanks For clearing that up, I was a little confused and it did cross my mind that it was just holiday humor.
Thanks again,
Butch
Quote from: Floor on December 18, 2013, 01:02:52 PM
Gammarayburst
Here is the most recent draft, again for your review / corrections / preferences.
Please find the attached file "Pseudo solid explained -5" PDF
@ all readers
This last draft gives additional principles and explanations of them. Educational to novices, good perhaps as a refresher to the more experienced. I hope it is clear and simply stated enough that it will be a helpful reference.
sincerely
floor
Floor, did you make this document?
using the file "Pseudo solid explained -7" PDF it is very clear to me that a small force used to move the magnets can release a larger force from the permanent magnets and therefore
it will be OU. You can see that the permanent magnet attraction can be easily turned on and off which is what an elec motor does except there is a large price to pay for that switching.
But here is the challenge now. Measure the work in and work out to show that it is OU.
But beyond that are two problems.
1. closer stronger, further weaker property of magnets.
You will need a cleaver way to compensate for that.
2. You will need enough extra to switch the magnet on/off and be ready for
the next cycle.
These concepts are similar to the Flynn parallel path concepts.
But why has there been little discussion of what Butch has revealed here?
Wake up guys... He gave you the secret right in front of your eyes.
Norman
Quote frm norman:'whats up guys... He gave you the secret right in front of your eyes.'
Unquote
He gave the window but not any secret but we are greatful for that.you have to come full cycle at a gain otherwise you remain underunity.
Floor, guys, the movement of the magnets will induce a voltage current in the coil but the resulting coil magnetic field will not effect magnets due to the Pseudo Solid movement. To prove it, the device generates electrical power but if you were to put a voltage/current into the coils from an external power source it would not make the magnets "motor".
Thanks, Butch LaFonte
Hey Floor, thanks for the detailed PDF, guess I finaly understood the thesis.
Indeed some interesting conclusions and thoughts. Now for a practical application...
BR
Ok, fellas, I hope this won't get ignored entirely, cause it took me some brainsweat to come up with it, plus some graphics fiddling on a pc that lacks of photoshop.
This is my contribution to Butchs' work and as far as I see, there is an energy gain.
Some details...
A certain force is required to bring the rotating magnet in close proximity of the static magnet, but the same force will be given back when it has passed by, although the force will be given to the rotor.
The rotating magnet is rotated by a motor, not drawn here, tho the shaft is visible.
In stage 5 the rotor will be held back, which compensates the gain of stage 4. Yet there is 2x gain in stage 2 and 3.
Of course, the rotating magnet(s) and the iron must be synched somehow, eg. by gears. There may be multiple rotating magnets, depending on the diameters of both rotations.
Is there a flaw?
BR
..
BR, I will study your design tonight. Very interesting.
I have also attached for everyone a proof of principal design.
Notice that one magnet at a time is transferred through the hinge area in one phase of the design.
The hinge area is there to eliminate most all flux transfer from upper bar to lower bar during the attraction phrase.
It becomes saturated due to the very large magnetic fields of the magnets because it's cross section is very small.
Thanks, Butch LaFonte
Note: Floor, you still with us?
The hinge bearings do not go all the way across, they are flush with the bars.
Sorry, Butch
BR, step 4 is very interesting in that is has a slight flaw but with a little change could open up something big.
Let me look and make sure before I speak.
Butch
@GammaRayBurst
Yes I'm still around just busy these days.
I need to study your most recent stuff more.
@dieter
Salutations, yes I did the Pseudo Solid explained docs. with GammaRaybursts Guidence.
@Profitis
Yes, measurements, measurements, measurements.
cheers all
flooir
@Floor, thanks again for the pdf, without it I wouldn't have ever understood ;D ...
@Butch, let me know what you think is the flaw in step 4. I don't see it there.
To further explain my idea for an implementation:
Step 2: Rotor is neutral and therefor attracted.
Step 3: Rotating magnet passed onto Rotor mass, both, rotor and stator have same polarity now, repelling eachother.
Step 4: Magnet carrying Rotor approaches towards (rather) neutral end of stator, therefor attracts it.
Step 5: now neutral Rotor must continue rotating, but is attracted by now magnet containing end of stator. This is where we lose a bit of energy. The whole process is kind of 3 steps forward, one step back.
I think it would be useful to add a second stator with a rotating magnet at the opposite side of the rotor, that will give a net gain torque during step 5 of the right stator.
I kept on trying to find a flaw in the net gain calculation, but was unsble to do so... Well, however, it is a mechanical challenge to keep the losses low enough, mainly in the rotation of the magnet and/or the synchronization of said rotation with the rotor. Gears would be straight forward, but would introduce high friction losses.
I came to the conclusion that it's best to have only one rotating magnet on the stator and rotate it 4x the speed of the rotor.
The design is made with easy practical implementation in mind. I'd suggest 3-4 mm soft steel, rotor 20cm diameter, stator 10cm diameter. Magnet contactless between the steel plates, gaps 0.1 to 0.5mm. Magnet fixed to rotating Arm of the stator shaft (actually the stator isn't really static: it contains that rotating magnet with arm and shaft, and probably motor or gear. Only the steel "donut" is static.)
A simple test device for step 2+3 may be a first approach that makes sense.
BR (Best Regards)
Dieter
I just made some observations when playing with some magnets and stacks of MOT - I Core sheets: when the stacks at the bottom and top of the magnets have a certain height, eg. more than 3mm thick, then the repelling effect of like poles between pseudosolid parts vanishes. But when I try the same with only the bottom stack, it works ok. This may be connected to saturation parameters, I yet have to verify that.
These parameters may however be critical.
BR
EDIT. just tested it with single laminate "I" sheets on top and bottom, works very well. A high saturation of the plates seem to be neccessary. Maybe a horizontal multilayer lamination also has a negative impact, as it may lead to unwanted flux loops.
@Butch, let me know what you think is the flaw in step 4. I don't see it there.
To further explain my idea for an implementation:
I have experienced a problem with this layout before. The magnet at the top of the 'horse shoe' believe it or not was projecting it's magnetic field all the way around to the far end and causing repulsion and the rotor magnet was being repelled on approach rater than attracted. If you can solve this then that layout will work. Let me know what you find out.
Thanks, Butch
See attached
Thanks Butch, tho this is surprising me, because the permeability of the horseshoe isn't endless.
I will see what I can do about it, thanks for the data.
BR
Quote from: dieter on February 05, 2015, 03:01:41 PM
Thanks Butch, tho this is surprising me, because the permeability of the horseshoe isn't endless.
I will see what I can do about it, thanks for the data.
BR
BR, I was surprised also! I use 1 inch square mild steel bars 8 inches long and 1 inch by 1 inch round NIB grade 42 magnets.
I just made a test, simulating this step 4 situation, although I have no such "horseshoe", so i used straight sheets. Again the "I" laminate sheets from a MOT core. So my horseshoe is essentially just straight, other than that the situation is like in the design.
If I approach the rotor (carrying a magnet) to the side of the horseshoe that contains the magnet, then it will be repelled.
If I approach the rotor (carrying a magnet) to the side of the horseshoe that does NOT contain the magnet, then the rotor is attracted.
I can not imagine how an other shape of the horseshoe could change that. But I guess the rotor should not be in contact with both, hot and cold ends of the horseshoe, so the space between the ends need to be big enough. I also think the thickness of the plates is critical.
Furthermore, the conditions at the rotor must be precisels identical like those of the neutral end of the horseshoe . If the gaps between magnets and plates are only slightly bigger, then the magnet will be repelled, like in a V gate or magnet ramp. Did you test it without the static magnet too? If it's still repelled that way, then the conditions are not the same at the rotor and horseshoe neutral end. Actually, this is one tricky part of the construction and requires high precision.
I will try it with a true horseshoe shaped horseshoe :o asap.
BR
See attached
@everybody, I would strongly suggest to go to youtube and search for "pseudosolid", this will give you many Vids by Butch and makes most of this whole pseudo solid business easy to understand, besides it is really impressive what he does.
@Butch, first of all, I am working with small calibers here, no killer magnets and huge blocks of steel, just a bunch of 5mm diameter Neos and some sheet metal.
So my conditions are slightly diffrent, but I think the pseudosolid principles apply nonetheless.
I have made some Horseshoe sheets and did some basic tests. One significant problem appeared: when the rotating magnet passes over to the rotor mass, it will be close to the inner tip of the horseshoe beginning, see step 3. But the static magnet is in the other corner. They have to be like that, otherwise the rotating one couldn't pass by. But now it is attracted to that tip! It would be repelled if the static magnet would be right at that inner tip, but as mentioned, that cannot be.
I have found an elegant solution to the problem: I put two additional magnets on the outside of the horseshoe, right on that tip, the polarity in a way that the rotating magnet is repelled by them. That seems to work nicely.
The neutral end of the horseshoe does however attract the rotor with magnet, as desired. I think your horseshoe setup was oversaturated.
BR
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhfqe2dyR3s
Quote from: dieter on February 06, 2015, 02:01:43 AM
@everybody, I would strongly suggest to go to youtube and search for "pseudosolid", this will give you many Vids by Butch and makes most of this whole pseudo solid business easy to understand, besides it is really impressive what he does.
@Butch, first of all, I am working with small calibers here, no killer magnets and huge blocks of steel, just a bunch of 5mm diameter Neos and some sheet metal.
So my conditions are slightly diffrent, but I think the pseudosolid principles apply nonetheless.
I have made some Horseshoe sheets and did some basic tests. One significant problem appeared: when the rotating magnet passes over to the rotor mass, it will be close to the inner tip of the horseshoe beginning, see step 3. But the static magnet is in the other corner. They have to be like that, otherwise the rotating one couldn't pass by. But now it is attracted to that tip! It would be repelled if the static magnet would be right at that inner tip, but as mentioned, that cannot be.
I have found an elegant solution to the problem: I put two additional magnets on the outside of the horseshoe, right on that tip, the polarity in a way that the rotating magnet is repelled by them. That seems to work nicely.
The neutral end of the horseshoe does however attract the rotor with magnet, as desired. I think your horseshoe setup was oversaturated.
BR
BR, I got to looking at step 4 again. When the magnet is moved from the rotor back to the lower arm of the horseshoe, that will put two magnets in the horseshoe assembly. Do you see the pull of those two magnets wanting to lock the magnet free rotor arm in position and preventing it from rotating away?
..
See attached
Yes, absolutely. Nonetheless, we got 3 times energy gain and this one time energy loss, actually rather in step 5 than in step 4.
I did explain that, does anybody read my stuff at all? ;D
Furthermore, if I add more static magnets to the top of the horseshoe (see labels in step 1), I can increase both, attraction force in step 2 and repelling force in step 3, as long as the neutral end of the horseshoe remains rather neutral. So the gain in 2+3 becomes overproportional compared to the loss in 5. This is where the genius thing happens, in the pseudosolidity! We actually achieve a polarity swapping with permanent magnets, which was unthinkable so far. In that sense I wanna thank you very much.
An other detail: a PM between two steel plates with airgaps is a delicate matter, esp. with strong magnets and small gaps, because the field strength in air increases squareish and therefor balancing in the middle is like dancing on a razzors edge. Very precise, low tolerance, stabile bearings are required.
As an alternative we could think about friction removal, eg. with soapwater. I once used to move a truck sideways with one hand, when it was standing on liquid soap...
BR (as in Best Regards, my name is dieter, but it has nothing to do with a diet :) )
See attached
Butch, it would help if you add labels, explaining where the energy output is and where energy input is required, and how much, like example given "input (accelleration of mass + friction)" or "output (full magnetic attraction)".
I guess in this latest design the output is the attraction force from step 1 to 2, and the rest is input: the movement to the left in the further steps just needs minimal input?
BR
Butch, it would help if you add labels, explaining where the energy output is and where energy input is required, and how much, like example given "input (accelleration of mass + friction)" or "output (full magnetic attraction)".
I guess in this latest design the output is the attraction force from step 1 to 2, and the rest is input: the movement to the left in the further steps just needs minimal input?
BR
BR, Good point, I will do so in the future. And yes the work in this last design is done during step 1 when the full attraction of the magnets pulls the lower bar up. Each movement left would be only very slight work involved. I will post a rotary version that will produce work with each movement from magnet set to magnet set.
Butch
Special note: BR, I just saw something, what if as the rotor arm in step 4, as it lines up with the lower horseshoe arm, you move the magnet all the way around the horseshoe loop to the top, then you have two magnets waiting there and the next rotor arm is starting to line up just as the lower rotor arm is leaving. Then the process starts again with the transfer of one magnet to the upper rotor arm. What do you think?
If I didn't misunderstand you then that's exactly what I plan to do. The rotating magnet is rotating constantly. As the rotor approaches the upper arm, that magnet approaches as well. The closer the rotor gets, the closer is also that magnet, increasing the attraction.
The problem so far is: the "mobile" magnet must pass by the static magnet. As both shafts are connected with gears, the attraction of the rotor will help to overcome the repelling force between mobile and static magnet.
If the mobile magnet once has passed by the static magnet, it will be pushed away, taking the rotor with it.
Material properties really have a vital impact. Low saturation of the plates may help to ease the passing by of the magnets, yet the entire tip of the horseshoe must feature an opposite pole to be able to push away the rotor, as soon as the mobile magnet once has passed over to the rotor.
.I wish I had a real shop...
BR
Today I've lost two hours in trying to make one of my "famous" wooden gears, using industrial grade plywood, only to realize that the layers are glued together just barely. Instead of 36 theeth it had like 28 :o ...
But I'm gettin there, slowly but steadily. I'm using a two arms rotor, so the gears translation is 1:2.
This puppy's gonna run on 4 Skate bearings, so there will be plenty of friction. However, if I can test the principle, esp. the pseudosolid effect (quasi polarity exchange) in step 2/3, then it does its job.
An other idea (maybe that's what you meant, Butch) would be, if the static and the mobile magnet are alternating in their purpose, so the mobile magnet would not pass by the static one, but instead kick it to the rotor and then become the new "static" for one cycle, only to be kicked and become the mobile one again in the next cycle (I doubt anyone has understood this :D bit hard to explain), but it would definitely be hard to build. And the by-passing method isn't requiring more energy, because all the force we need to pass by will be returned, like in an elastic spring.
BR
Quote from: dieter on February 06, 2015, 02:37:27 PM
I did explain that, does anybody read my stuff at all? ;D
I do. Keep up the good and interesting work, dieter.
:S:MarkSCoffman
" And the by-passing method isn't requiring more energy, because all the force we need to pass by will be returned, like in an elastic spring."
BR
BR, My tests showed that when the air gaps at the magnet poles were as small as .005" that the magnets did not repel or attract when passing close to each other. This is when they are between two iron bars. I believe one of my videos shows that. I will look it up and post link.
Butch
Yes, I've seen that. It may indeed mostly neutralize attraction and repelling in your setup, but depending on the geometry there may still be some effects, although weaker. The thickness of the iron bars is important. In my case of the thin sheet metal I clearly still get a repelling force. I hope I can test the principle nevertheless.
@Mark, thanks.
BR
@gammarayburst out of curiosity did you ever manage to witness a self-sustaining magnetic device giving repeated full cycles at a gain?
Hope you don't mind if I answer.
The fact that something doesn't exist doesn't mean it is impossible.
For instance mankind had fire, metal etc. for thousands of years, and the following things have always been possible: Vacoom cleaners, Cars, Airplanes, TV, Cellphones, Spaceflight.
These things, among others, have always been possible. But it took some genious minds to actually invent them. They didn't drop from the sky into the hands of the scepticals.
What is really interesting here is the quint essence of pseudosolid ferromagnetics. We wouldn't research in this field if it wasn't promising, after doing all kinds of experiments with magnets for like 30 years.
So if you have doubts, specific arguments are certainly welcome.
BR
No I just want to know if he's seen anything as he works with magnets all the time.maybe a penulum or motor,smot or something etc..btw @dieter what did you do with your gold leafs?
I still got most of the goldleafs, tho I was using a bit for electrodes.
@all: I've made some tests with a very crude setup. All I can say at this moment is, keeping a magnet between two pieces of iron, maintaining an airgap on both sides, is extremly difficult, esp. with a magnet that sits at the perimeter of a rotor. Even in a rather rigid construction, the slightest freedom of the bearings will cause the magnet to stick to one side. Which results in extreme friction. Therefor it is essential to prevent that, eg. by a wheels system such as in Floor's PDF, or with a high efficiency lubrication.
Furthermore, the attraction and repulsion of the rotor results in horizontal changes of pressure between the synchronizsation gears, causing further friction. Tho, a rigid construction (my wooden base was slightly flexible) may prevent that, but still, the gears are not a perfect solution.
I can however confirm that the rotor is repelled, once the magnet has passed over to it. But that was to be expected. I can not say which force was stronger and if there was any net gain, simply because the friction was too high, due to the magnet sticking to one metal sheet, on both, the rotor as well as the horseshoe...
I have to think about how to implement this in a better way, to prevent the mentioned complications.
BR
BTW. A guy named Nick Moore has an interesting tube vid about using ferrofluid for lubrication of permanent magnets. Although, it's a bit of a mess, it get's extremly slippry.
Quote from: profitis on February 11, 2015, 02:01:31 AM
No I just want to know if he's seen anything as he works with magnets all the time.maybe a penulum or motor,smot or something etc..btw @dieter what did you do with your gold leafs?
Profitis, No I never in my life have seen a true self sustaining magnet motor. I do feel that if I had the funding I would have one based on the Pseudo Solid Effect. The power in to the power out is so positive it would for sure work. Building a machine that can maintain .005" air gaps will cost a lot of money.
Quote from: gammarayburst on February 11, 2015, 02:54:41 PM
Profitis, No I never in my life have seen a true self sustaining magnet motor. I do feel that if I had the funding I would have one based on the Pseudo Solid Effect. The power in to the power out is so positive it would for sure work. Building a machine that can maintain .005" air gaps will cost a lot of money.
I'd fund it, if you could quantify the above statement with accurate measurements.
@dieter weigh and shove the gold leaf and a chunk pyrolusite into soda ash sol and chek for faradays law.you'l get a shock.@gammarayburst well sir I suspect if you begin to investigate these ideas in relation to electromagnetism you might just tilt past that thin red line into ou territory.concentrate on using different materials too eg cobalt,nickel,bismuth and interesting things might happen.I was just discussing the smot device the other day and suggested using a nickel ball instead of the usual iron.different materials react differently to a magnetic field.I suspect even paramagnetic materials eg titanium may be worth investigating
@LibreEnergia / GammaRayburst
I would be interested and willing to diagram and illustrate a set of measurement procedures
methods and simple devices that will quantify the forces at play in a specific
"pseudo solid" interaction.
floor
@Gammarayburst
Here is a rough outline of a measureing process.
It would be up to you to decide on which or
what Psuedo Solid operations to measure, as well
as the specifics of magnets types, steel bar sizes
and so on.
Please find the attached file P S measureing.PDF
cheers
floor
Quote from: Floor on February 15, 2015, 10:36:45 PM
@Gammarayburst
Here is a rough outline of a measureing process.
It would be up to you to decide on which or
what Psuedo Solid operations to measure, as well
as the specifics of magnets types, steel bar sizes
and so on.
Please find the attached file P S measureing.PDF
cheers
floor
Floor, I am having trouble understanding what is being measured and where the work in and work out takes place?
Butch
Quote from: Floor on February 15, 2015, 10:36:45 PM
@Gammarayburst
Here is a rough outline of a measureing process.
It would be up to you to decide on which or
what Psuedo Solid operations to measure, as well
as the specifics of magnets types, steel bar sizes
and so on.
Please find the attached file P S measureing.PDF
cheers
floor
The procedure measures forces not energies.
@GammaRayBurst
Looking at the third page of the PDF (which is a side view) of the exemplary
measuring device. Adding weight to the pulley string would at some point
pull the first bar away from the second bar (which is the bar between the magnets)
in the line of bars. (notice that the second bar is illustrated as being pinned with
a screw (see the second drawing).(You could pin / clamp it some other way)
It takes essentially the same amount of force to pull the first bar away from the
rest of the bars, as the force put out (during an attraction of the first bar) if it
were approaching / being attracted to the other bars / magnet set in stead of being
pulled away.
However, measuring only the the force (weight ) required to INITIALLY pull the
first bar from the rest will show only the peak force. We need show the force of
the magnetic attraction as it is dropping off with distance. A set of measurements
at increasing distances (between first and second bars) is needed to do this. This
SET of measurements can give a very good approximation of the WORK OUT PUT.
But you will be measureing the out put "back wards",,, so to speak.
There is an error (at least one) in my drawings / explanations, in that the first
measurement of the above interaction, should be done with out a spacer between
the first and second bars. (the very first).
Cheers
floor
I believe an opposite poles attraction set up with a closed magnetic loop is the best approach for a test fixture to prove that it takes far less work to reset the magnets than the work you get out by the cycling bar shown in the attached drawing. The magnets would need to be in a block of Teflon and the poles recessed .005" at each end of the magnets. The block would be is very slight sliding contact with the polished surface of the bars. The fixture could also be configured in a linear fashion for testing. I can not express how important it is that this Teflon block movement be as friction free as possible and the magnet poles in the block be recessed as close to .005" inch at each end of each magnet.
Thanks, Butch LaFonte
Quote from: Floor on February 17, 2015, 09:53:01 AM
@GammaRayBurst
Looking at the third page of the PDF (which is a side view) of the exemplary
measuring device. Adding weight to the pulley string would at some point
pull the first bar away from the second bar (which is the bar between the magnets)
in the line of bars. (notice that the second bar is illustrated as being pinned with
a screw (see the second drawing).(You could pin / clamp it some other way)
It takes essentially the same amount of force to pull the first bar away from the
rest of the bars, as the force put out (during an attraction of the first bar) if it
were approaching / being attracted to the other bars / magnet set in stead of being
pulled away.
However, measuring only the the force (weight ) required to INITIALLY pull the
first bar from the rest will show only the peak force. We need show the force of
the magnetic attraction as it is dropping off with distance. A set of measurements
at increasing distances (between first and second bars) is needed to do this. This
SET of measurements can give a very good approximation of the WORK OUT PUT.
But you will be measureing the out put "back wards",,, so to speak.
There is an error (at least one) in my drawings / explanations, in that the first
measurement of the above interaction, should be done with out a spacer between
the first and second bars. (the very first).
Cheers
floor
Let me think tomorrow on this and get back to you. Butch
@GammaRayBurst
For sure contemplate it. It's your baby, and of course you may
proceede as you like.
The whole process of measuring and so on is NOT something I am
an expert on in regrd to magnet forces. But it is some thing I intend to
become a master of eventually. The process of determining the ratios of the
forces will not tell us the power available (power being the ratio of work to time)
But the ratios of work in to work out (before losses such as friction and
acceleration against inertia) will be the same as the ratio of power in to
power out (Maybe)?
The attractions may behave close to prediction arrived at by applying the inverse
square law. I would be interested to see if they do or not. Dieter may have some
valuable input in this area.
I'm attaching a JPG file on inverse square. It's part of a study / project I've been
working on. It's a draft and may contain errors.
enjoy
best wishes
floor
See attached
Ok Butch
Let me think about it, and get back to you.
cool
floor
I believe that an interesting approach to solving friction problems would be
the use of; ~ small captive spherical sapphire ball bearings ~ arranged is 120
degree pattern on the face of the magnets. I believe friction and magnetic loading
problems will then become nearly nonexistent when used with boundary support.
:S:MarkSCoffman
@ Gammaray Burst
Because we can / are able to measure the work alone, we
can largly ignore the friction and other losses at this point.
We can make measurements of the work alone. And assign reasoned
/ reasonable approximations of what the friction and losses are. AND / OR
there are also ways to measure the actual friction losses in the tests.
Then subtract these from the "gain". Later though.
With out a rotory or cycling device actual power would be difficult to assess.
Doesn't matter though.
Simpley showing an accurate work in to work out ratio is a huge step forward.
A ratio of say 1.3 : 1 might indicate a working device.
A ratio of 1.5 : or 2 : 1 would be fantastic !
Reducing friction in the tests IS desireable. If Teflon coating is easy enough then
go ahead with it. However, a litle oil or grease in the right places might be all that is needed
for the tests.
Saphire spheres sounds awsome for a future cycleing device.
The attached PDF (L F meas 1.pdf) Has some notes / drawings for you to consider / modify /
through out so on.
These are just a start, as there are a lot more details to cover.
cheers
floor
First of all I admire Butch who work so hard trying to make something to work.
The pseudo solid concept was once very interesting to me, but one day I ran some tests with it, which changed my mind.
The magnetic attraction and repulsion to the iron, and between each magnet, changes to the weaker or the stronger depending on if the iron pieces are in a pseudo solid state, or not.
So every time one think there is excess energy when switching from the one state to the other, that portion of energy is already been used by that other state in the cycle.
I still hope that Butch finally reach success with the pseudo solid concept.
Vidar
Quote from Low-Q
"The magnetic attraction and repulsion to the iron, and between each
magnet, changes to the weaker or the stronger depending on if the
iron pieces are in a pseudo solid state, or not. So every time one think
there is excess energy when switching from the one state to the other,
that portion of energy is already been used by that other state in the cycle."
I think I get the general idea of what you are saying. No net gain or in other words
the forces balanced out. That is what we should expect from the interactions.
Speaking only for my self.
Not having a detailed description of your measurements, the interactions and process you
followed, I am still willing to go through this for my self. Just for the experience.
What ever the results I will accept them. The process being in the open, others can also
benefit / learn as I do.
I appreciate your input though
cheers
floor
Quote from: Floor on February 22, 2015, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from Low-Q
"The magnetic attraction and repulsion to the iron, and between each
magnet, changes to the weaker or the stronger depending on if the
iron pieces are in a pseudo solid state, or not. So every time one think
there is excess energy when switching from the one state to the other,
that portion of energy is already been used by that other state in the cycle."
I think I get the general idea of what you are saying. No net gain or in other words
the forces balanced out. That is what we should expect from the interactions.
Speaking only for my self.
Not having a detailed description of your measurements, the interactions and process you
followed, I am still willing to go through this for my self. Just for the experience.
What ever the results I will accept them. The process being in the open, others can also
benefit / learn as I do.
I appreciate your input though
cheers
floor
Also have in mind that measuring forces alone does not decide how much energy you spend or gains.
Say you measure magnetic attraction in two different states, and find that the measurements are equal, or not equal, you must take into consideration the average force between two points. Because force over distance is the energy you want to calculate.
If the device was a wheel, to make it easier to explain, you must find the force at every degree through one cycle. Maybe 360 samples through one cycle is not enough, but most important is that you measure the force (Or torque of the wheel) exactly one degree, or half degree at the time. That way you can tell pretty much for sure if the device is OU or not.
For the pseudo solid concept, maybe there is no wheel, or circular motion, so measuring at each degree might be hard to do. It still has a cycle to complete. Find measurements at small steps at the time, and consider all possible forces that applies in all three dimensions to each object on that device. Then you can assume you have no gain at all when all measurements are accounted for, and calculate the average by adding all measurements together, negative and positive forces, and devide the sum with the number of measurements.
Vidar
See attached
Butch, I don't understand how the magnet gets past the metal attraction spot?
Seems to be there is a sticky spot.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on February 23, 2015, 10:16:43 AM
Butch, I don't understand how the magnet gets past the metal attraction spot?
Seems to be there is a sticky spot.
Norman
Norman, I didn't draw the next unit. The units continue around in a closed loop making it rotary. [/size]
This is a VERY powerful machine.
Butch
@norman6538
Hey Norman good to se you
@gammaRayburst
A couple of files to help people understsnd what would be measured.
Lookin good
cheers floor
More files
2 more files
cheers
Quote from: Floor on February 23, 2015, 01:29:34 PM
@norman6538
Hey Norman good to se you
@gammaRayburst
A couple of files to help people understsnd what would be measured.
Lookin good
cheers floor
Refering to the PDF. Is it only 5 or 6 samples in one cycle?
Vidar
@vidar
QUOTE FROM VIDAR "Referring to the PDF. Is it only 5 or 6 samples in one cycle?"
The incarnation of pseudo solid device he presented in this context has 6 movements.
1 magnet slides ....2 steel bars attract......the magnet is returned......the 2 steel bars
are reset.... this is 6 motions....or 4 if you consider the movements of both steel bars
as single output and reset motions, in 1 cycle.
I don't know how may samples or how many of increments of the movements
Butch might measure.
May be as many as 15 samples in the output motion ?
One for the output stroke retun ?
Two for the first magnet motion ?
One for the magnet return.?
I don't even know if he is planning to make measurements at this time.
It's only something we were discussing. Ideas about the what and
how to proceed. This is his project and I want to make sure that I do not
interfere with his process and decisions.
There are a lot of preperations and there are a lot of variables and choices to consider
in this kind of undertakeing, if there is to be meaningful result.
cheers
floor
Please look at the attached drawing of a directional magnetic material I have come up with and please give your opinion on these questions I have.
1. Notice that if the material is 6 inches long that half of it is non-ferromagnetic and that part of it has close to the same ability to conduct a magnetic field as air.
2. Now notice that bar A is only 3 inches from the magnet and 1/2 inches to the side of the directional material bar. That means that the magnetic field would have 3 & 1/2 inches to travel to bar A and only 2 inches of air to travel through. But to travel to B it has 6 inches to travel and half of that, 3 inches, is air.
3. Do you agree that the field of the magnet will take the path of least resistance and go to bar A?
If this is the case then this will make the Pseudo Solid effect work!
Thanks, Butch LaFonte
@GammaRayBurst
I'll have to think on it.
floor
@GammaRayBurst
The flow of magnetic energy under some conditions behaves in
ways similar to an electric current. Electric currents don't simply
take the path of least resistance. An electric current divides between
paths in proportion to the electrical resistance of those paths, in accordance
ohms law and kirchoff's law.
Under the conditions in the drawing the magnetic "current" should
I think, divide between both bars A and B, with most of it circulating
through the nearest bar.
cheers
floor
"Under the conditions in the drawing the magnetic "current" should
I think, divide between both bars A and B, with most of it circulating
through the nearest bar. "
cheers
floor
I agree Floor. This is a game changer I feel. I believe the closer A gets to the directional material, the less field will go to B.
This opens up a new realm of Pseudo Solid designs.
This directional material could be built at home using square washers with a non-ferromagnetic material of the same thickness placed between the steel washers. I'm going to start on a test fixture today.
Thanks, Butch
See attached drawing
Quote from: LibreEnergia on February 11, 2015, 04:26:27 PM
I'd fund it, if you could quantify the above statement with accurate measurements.
LibreEnergia, Thanks for your offer. This Hybrid material design I posted would have to be funded and tested first before I could do a work in to work out measurement. The material if it proves to work as planned would open up a whole new area of magnetic research and development. It would make Pseudo Solid designs have a very large ratio of work in to work out. Only one small bar segment would need to be built to prove the theory.[/size]
Thanks, Butch LaFonte
Butch I just hope you finally get one of these ideas working well. I have tried some of
your ideas and all I ever do is shift the sticky spot or reset problem around to different
places. Its easy to make magnets do work but then you have to reset everything back
to repeat another cycle and I call that the "reset problem".
Good luck Butch.
My basement is just too full of failed embodiments. - seriously....I have 4 folding tables
with experiments and parts all laying out in the basement. - good thing there is plenty
of room down there.
Norman
See attached drawing,
Note: Both rotating switches can share a common shaft by curving the lower switch assembly around to the back of the upper switch assembly.
Thanks, Butch LaFonte
I don't get it Butch. Can you give us a good written description of how this works and what it will do?
Just because the flux can be switched does not accomplish anything useful that I can see.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on March 04, 2015, 08:57:30 AM
I don't get it Butch. Can you give us a good written description of how this works and what it will do?
Just because the flux can be switched does not accomplish anything useful that I can see.
Norman
Norman, look at the two coils. When the flux leaves and enters the coil cores it will induce a voltage/current in the coils just like in a transformer. This will not effect the rotation of the switching rotors because they operate in a Pseudo Solid fashion.
Butch
Thanks Butch.
I missed the coils in that drawing cause they were not labeled.
It sure has flux switching on and off.
and hopefully no or little drag....
go for it.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on March 05, 2015, 07:17:23 AM
Thanks Butch.
I missed the coils in that drawing cause they were not labeled.
It sure has flux switching on and off.
and hopefully no or little drag....
go for it.
Norman
Thanks Norman, I'm going to continue to post designs till I have a working design so simple that a 5th grader can build one for 5 dollars.
Butch are there eddy currents in the design above. I think eddy currents come from
current flowing but in many of your designs the mag flux changes but no current flows
and thus no eddy current loss problems. That in itself is a great advantage.
Norman
See my sketch (made on e-book, edited in paint, sorry for that).
The idea is start with an E-core, remove some in the middle to place the magnet, and now stick the 3 parts in between the two rotating half disks. Of course we would like to have many pieces, not just 2, but i am not able to draw that.
My idea is that as disk 1 is leaving arms 1 and 2, disk 2 is (with the same speed) inserting itself in arms 2 and 3, and thus transferring the flux from arms 1+2 to 2+3. This will induce useful power in the coils. I do not know if the Lenz effect will give drag.
Quote from: norman6538 on March 06, 2015, 08:21:30 AM
Butch are there eddy currents in the design above. I think eddy currents come from
current flowing but in many of your designs the mag flux changes but no current flows
and thus no eddy current loss problems. That in itself is a great advantage.
Norman
Hi Norman,
I think eddy currents come from changing flux in a solid ferromagnetic core (the changing flux may originate from a coil wound on that core or from an outside source like a moving magnet near that core).
This means that in Butch's setups the rotation of the rotor causes a flux change in the volume, in the mass of the core (and here the word core includes both the stator and the rotor cores) so they must have either laminated core or ferrite core or metglass core which has a restricted electric current conducting ability. A solid core which can conduct electric current in its volume all the way in every direction is destined to have eddy losses. (This is why a normal off the shelf transformer has laminated core and not a solid one.)
Gyula
Quote from: deslomeslager on March 06, 2015, 11:08:42 AM
See my sketch (made on e-book, edited in paint, sorry for that).
The idea is start with an E-core, remove some in the middle to place the magnet, and now stick the 3 parts in between the two rotating half disks. Of course we would like to have many pieces, not just 2, but i am not able to draw that.
My idea is that as disk 1 is leaving arms 1 and 2, disk 2 is (with the same speed) inserting itself in arms 2 and 3, and thus transferring the flux from arms 1+2 to 2+3. This will induce useful power in the coils. I do not know if the Lenz effect will give drag.
Hi deslomeslager,
I think that only an actual build can answer the Lenz effect question you ask, basically there have to be Lenz but how severe or not it may be, a test can tell.
On a Russian site I found another solution for flux switching, the principle is similar to what you show, only the mechanical setup is different, see the attachment. To reduce cogging due to the assymetry of the rotor with respect to its shaft, exactly another setup could be built on the other side of the shaft on which there would be two rotor bars then, in 180 degree position. When one of the bars closes the lower magnetic circuit on the left side as shown in the picture below, the other bar just closes the upper magnetic circuit (not shown) on the right side.
Gyula
EDIT this is the link to the site I took the attached picture from:
http://www.skif.biz/index.php?name=Pages&op=page&pid=19 (http://www.skif.biz/index.php?name=Pages&op=page&pid=19)
Thank you Guyla for your two replies. Its just too bad we have all these no Lenz ideas
and patents floating around and not has prooved itself yet. Just think if we could make
elec just for the mechanical rotation costs... It would cost a fraction of what we have
and we'd all be driving electrical cars and trucks.
I loved those two "archiv" animated gifs down the page of the Russian site.
But how would you efficiently move the magnet or metal to accomplish that?
So many ideas, drawing, patents but not working enough to go into production.
The world needs a major energy breakthru....
I have worked hard at it for maybe 15 years and so has Butch......
Norman
Hi Norman,
you wrote:
QuoteIts just too bad we have all these no Lenz ideas and patents floating around and not has prooved itself yet.
Sorry but I am not sure whether the setup I referred to on the Russian site has no Lenz effect, only careful tests can give answers. I showed it because its mechanical construction may prove simpler than the one in the drawing with the two half circle rotated cores to steer the magnetic flux on the top of this page. This may be relative of course, I think it is simpler...
I am also unsure on the workings of the two animated gif files you fancied, how "metal valves could be used for switching the magnetic gap between the stationary magnet and coil" (this is how the relevant Russian text translates by google). It continues: "You can move the small flap with much less energy than rotating the entire magnet." So the small flap is the part of the valve which is supposed to steer the flux of the magnet towards or away from the core. Again, how much energy is needed to control the valve can only be found by tests.
You surely know the Flynn parallel path flux switching setup, the one which has no moving components and the input coils steer the flux of two permanent magnets towards the output coils. I am also unsure on such setup's Lenz behaviour though, (the input and output coils are placed in the same magnetic path of the same core so the bemf of the load reflects at the input for sure).
There is a drawing from year 2006 in the Photos section of Minato wheel yahoo group, uploaded by 'shavekitty', which shows a close mechanical equivalent of the parallel path setup, by rotating a diametrically magnetized cylinder magnet in the middle part of the paralleled cores, see the attachment below.
The output coils are not shown but regardless of this, I am not sure on a lenzless behaviour of this kind of flux switching, perhaps Lenz is a 'little less pronounced' in this than in the motionless parallel path setup. Of course, the parallel path principle to sum up the total flux of the magnets in the 'output' part of the core does work but how this increased flux could be utilized without reflecting back to the input side is the question.
Gyula
See attached, I will post operation tomorrow, it's late.
See attached
See attached
See attached, Thanks, Butch LaFonte
See attached
See attached
I think you need to build something soon, Butch. Ideas cannot provide energy to the world - only when they are implemented - if they work...
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 18, 2015, 02:41:00 PM
I think you need to build something soon, Butch. Ideas cannot provide energy to the world - only when they are implemented - if they work...
Vidar
You offering to fund it?
An idea is better than no idea.
Quote from old french
philosopher (Me)[/font][/size]
I found with my latest design that when you move the magnet in a Pseudo Solid fashion from one end of the work bars to the opposite end that the magnetic field switches from pulling on the bottom assembly and resisting the movement of the work bars apex to the end of the bottom assembly, to helping move the work bars apex to the end of the bottom assembly. I need an animation done so badly so people can see the operation. Is there anyone out there willing do this so people will understand the operation?[/size]Thanks, Butch LaFonteSee attached
See attached
See attached,[/size]The trick is to move the magnet in a Pseudo Solid Fashion before you move the work bar.Butch
See attached
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhfqe2dyR3s
@GammaRayBurst
Question? see attached
cheers
Butch I need a little writeup describing how this works.
I think the magnets move back and forth and the "V" rocks
back and forth and thus power is available. And how do you
account for the work required to slide the magnets up the ramp?
My problem with magnets is that they are stronger when closer and
weaker when farther away. That is a nasty factor to compensate for.
And then you have the disadvantaged leverage to compensate for also.
The only thing that really nails this is measurements.
I do have a permanent magnet device that is OU but then comes
the problem of reseting the device so that it can be repeated and thus
self reciprocating.
For instance lets say you have a lever that will lift 100 ft lbs with 50 ft lbs
but then it takes 60 ft lbs of work to reset it so it can repeat.
You can see that self reciprocation is not possible unless the reset work
is less than 50 ft lbs.
I have drawings of several permanent magnet devices but when you consider
what I said above and get the measurements they fall short - So a drawing is
simple a jump starter idea but the end results are in the measurements.
Norman
And how do you
account for the work required to slide the magnets up the ramp?
Norman
Norman, If you lay it on it's side then the magnets are 90 degrees to gravity and it's not up hill. It's like a 4000 pound car that's rolls along a level road.
You are not lifting it, your moving it down the road. Also, if you did operate it up right as in the drawing that would be fine because the potential energy you put in the magnets when you pushed them up hill would be returned to the system when they fell down with the bar back to level.
Butch
Quote from: Floor on March 20, 2015, 12:44:31 AM
@GammaRayBurst
Question? see attached
cheers
Floor, the operation in practice would be with it on it's side so bars are not being pushed up hill. There is also a .005" air gap between the bar and the lower assembly. Also a .005" air gap between the magnet poles and the bar surface.
Hope this helps!
Butch
@GammaRaybURST
Thanks
floor
Quote from: gammarayburst on March 20, 2015, 10:10:22 AM
And how do you
account for the work required to slide the magnets up the ramp?
Norman
Norman, If you lay it on it's side then the magnets are 90 degrees to gravity and it's not up hill. It's like a 4000 pound car that's rolls along a level road.
You are not lifting it, your moving it down the road. Also, if you did operate it up right as in the drawing that would be fine because the potential energy you put in the magnets when you pushed them up hill would be returned to the system when they fell down with the bar back to level.
Butch
Thanks Butch, that is a big help.....
but now where is the attraction to make work? the magnets are between the bars.
kinda shunted....
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on March 20, 2015, 11:24:37 AM
Thanks Butch, that is a big help.....
but now where is the attraction to make work? the magnets are between the bars.
kinda shunted....
Norman
No, not at all, look at the end view in the drawings. Believe me, I had my finger in the way under the bars and it still hurts. It's a magnetic loop with the up angle bars forming an air gap. When you let that air gap close, watch out! Pure iron would make this a smasher of bones.
Butch
I do not understand those 5 drawing sequences at all. What makes the change from
step 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5? Does anyone else understand the step by step sequence?
If so please explain it.
Norman
About with 4 magnets!
The magnets are always moved to the up angle part of the work bar BEFORE the bars are moved left or right. VERY important!
Quote from: gammarayburst on March 20, 2015, 03:20:15 PM
The magnets are always moved to the up angle part of the work bar BEFORE the bars are moved left or right. VERY important!
I think you overlook some details in the practical operation of this device. Magnetism will attract or repel other magnets with different force depending of the presence of magnetic materials. Magnetic materials will also attract or repel other magnetic materials depending on the presence of magnets and their magnetic orientation. This presence, far away or in close vicinity will finally account for all forces in the cycle.
So, just to correct some "important" instructions, it does not matter how you order the left/right thing. It will not work.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 20, 2015, 04:50:36 PM
I think you overlook some details in the practical operation of this device. Magnetism will attract or repel other magnets with different force depending of the presence of magnetic materials. Magnetic materials will also attract or repel other magnetic materials depending on the presence of magnets and their magnetic orientation. This presence, far away or in close vicinity will finally account for all forces in the cycle.
So, just to correct some "important" instructions, it does not matter how you order the left/right thing. It will not work.
Vidar
You are incorrect.
Quote from: Floor on March 20, 2015, 12:44:31 AM
@GammaRayBurst
Question? see attached
cheers
This sequence will not work because the level part of the work bars is not extended out past the lower assembly in one of the steps.
Butch
Quote from: gammarayburst on March 20, 2015, 05:08:31 PM
You are incorrect.
Nope. I suggest you try a very simple experiment:
Take 10 marbles and devide the number in to two groups of 5 marbles.
1. Move the first group to the left, and then back BEFORE you move the second group to the right and then back.
2.
Move the first group to the left, and then back AFTER you move the second group to the right and then back.[/size]
How many marbles do you have after 1. and 2. experiment? I guess you still have 10 marbles in total. You can arrange these marbles in any way you want, but you will still have 10 marbles to play with.
The same applies to magnetism. You cannot "destroy" or "create" the total flux from a magnet on your demand without energy inputs.
In a closed system there is no change in the sum of forces due to magnetism.
You can prove me wrong if you do a practical experiment with the design you recently came up with - or play with those marbles. Doesn't matter. If you end up in having a working device, or end up with 11 or more marbles after experimenting with the initial 10 pcs, I will be convinced that you're right.
Sorry, but I don't believe anything before I can see it before my own eyes.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 20, 2015, 05:52:30 PM
Nope. I suggest you try a very simple experiment:
Take 10 marbles and devide the number in to two groups of 5 marbles.
1. Move the first group to the left, and then back BEFORE you move the second group to the right and then back.
2. Move the first group to the left, and then back AFTER you move the second group to the right and then back.[/size]
How many marbles do you have after 1. and 2. experiment? I guess you still have 10 marbles in total. You can arrange these marbles in any way you want, but you will still have 10 marbles to play with.
The same applies to magnetism. You cannot "destroy" or "create" the total flux from a magnet on your demand without energy inputs.
In a closed system there is no change in the sum of forces due to magnetism.
You can prove me wrong if you do a practical experiment with the design you recently came up with - or play with those marbles. Doesn't matter. If you end up in having a working device, or end up with 11 or more marbles after experimenting with the initial 10 pcs, I will be convinced that you're right.
Sorry, but I don't believe anything before I can see it before my own eyes.
Vidar
Marbles? What about the trillions of "marbles" inside the marbles with electrons in orbit around each?
@GammarayBurst
very cool
I just want to make certain that I have understood the sequence correctly.
please find the attached file "PS Mar 20. jpeg"
stay cool
floor
Floor, I like your sequence drawings but a little more is needed.
1. a pivot for the bars
2. what makes the bars slide left and right?
3. Where is the work done by the metal attraction?
4. what makes the magnets slide back and forth?
Then until all these forces are measured its only an idea on paper
and I have MANY paper drawn ideas that failed the measurement tests.
no measurements - no proof - PERIOD
Norman
The following is based on a magnet attracted to metal and a spring
for power storage.
the further you pull a spring the more work potential you can store
in that spring.
that stored power can then be used right away..
and if you use a magnet to pull that spring then
its free if you can escape the magnet sticky spot....
1. the power source is the magnet
2. the power is stored in the spring for later use
3. more power is available from the lever connection
matching the spring and magnetic characteristics.
4. and the escape is via the Lafonte slider..... what post?
it works because its magnet to metal attraction which is
escapeable whereas magnet to magnet that is not escapeable...
5. the reset/repeat would be available by the power stored
from the magnet in the spring.... if the efficiency is
over 200% 100% to mechanically return/reset and
100% to start the process over again...
I would use 2 springs for each portion of that...
I have achieved excess work out over work in but not enough over 200%
to reset and repeat the process...
The following idea is what started all of the above.
gammarayburst: said on September 06, 2013, 06:06:52 AM ยป
Norman, it will slide so easy you could push it with a feather.
Think of sliding a magnet down the side of a file cabinet with an air
gap of .003" between the magnet and metal side. That is what I base the
whole Pseudo Solid principle on. It won't grab on to anything till it
gets to the end of the metal cabinet. There is no end with the bars
in this. I have many video's showing this on youtube at the LaFonte
Research and LaFonte Group site for 5 years now. Think of a magnet
sliding down the front of your refrigerator door. The only reason it
does not slide all the time is because of the friction between it
and the door surface. Put an air gap of .003" between the two and
watch it slide down like a rock being dropped.
Butch
Quote from: Floor on March 20, 2015, 08:53:52 PM
@GammarayBurst
very cool
I just want to make certain that I have understood the sequence correctly.
please find the attached file "PS Mar 20. jpeg"
stay cool
floor
Floor, yes, the sequence is correct. Remember it can have more than one magnet if you like. Saturation must also be considered.
Thanks Floor, Butch
@Norman6538
Yep
I don't personally think Butch has accurately described the force needed to move the magnets in
some of his videos when he says they can be moved with a feather. At the same time the videos
clearly show that it doesn't take a lot of force to do what he is describing, so it doesn't really bother
me very much.
It is important to understand that how much DISTANCE each FORCE is applied over is what defines the work.
(displacement multiplied by force)
In the design at hand, there are 3 force times displacement actions to measure.
1. moving the magnet (pseudo solid fashion) WORK IN
2. sliding the bent bar set and magnet (perhaps on wheels) WORK IN
3. attraction of the bar set / magnet to the base (work out)
Butch is only measuring these motions by feel and so on. It appears to me that the results of his measurements
provide good enough evidence to support making quantitative / precise measurements.
I would like to quantitatively measure them at some time in the future, if some one else doesn't
beat me to it. I don't think Butch has to do this, or that you have to either.
But if you do, I sure would appreciate if I could see the methods used and results of it.
As to what method or device can be used to cause the 2 input motions and to utilize the output motion ?
I agree with Butch, that these are just a matter of standard engineering application, no big deal,
unless of course one sees some advantage to a particular or perhaps novel method.
cheers
In the Pseudo Solid design, if the magnet poles maintain an equal spacing from the ferro-magnetic material (.005"), the magnet will be in a floating state.
The equal but opposite forces will cancel each out and it will be so easy to move that blowing on it will move it. The only resistance to movement will be eddy current drag but the eddy currents can be reduced to near zero with proper material selection and design of the material configuration. Keeping a .005" air gap will take precision machining and proper design of the machine. The most amazing thing about Pseudo Solid design to me is that you can design a generator using it but when you put a voltage current through the generator's coils using an external power source, the generator will not motor.
This is a very good indication I feel because if it did motor then it would probably mean that as a generator it would have "drag".
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
In my latest design the work bars are spaced .005" above the lower assembly. If eddy currents are reduced to near zero as present art allows then with proper machine design the bars can move with an amount of work so low that it does not need at this point to even be put in the equation. If two machines are configured in such a way that the pull on the work bars is like the magnets, equal but opposite, then the bars will be "floating" also.
The amount of work needed as input would be less than 1% compared to output. Also remember most all work put into the bars shows up as kinetic energy and can be recovered to a large degree.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
I need a 3D animation so bad on my latest design. Please help!
Butch
I am also aware of possible hysteresis loss in the Pseudo Solid system and I am aware it would have to be designed for low loss as in a transformer. [/color][/font][/size]
Quote from: gammarayburst on March 20, 2015, 06:36:08 PM
Marbles? What about the trillions of "marbles" inside the marbles with electrons in orbit around each?
You have magnets and iron made up by a given number of atoms. Around them a given number of electrons. What makes you think this number increase during one cycle? Because it has to for this device to work. Since the number of available atoms are fixed, and the magnetic force for that reason dont change, you're left with a passive device that can't do work by its own.
Just face it. Overunity wont happen with magnets.
Quote from: Low-Q on March 22, 2015, 05:42:21 PM
You have magnets and iron made up by a given number of atoms. Around them a given number of electrons. What makes you think this number increase during one cycle? Because it has to for this device to work. Since the number of available atoms are fixed, and the magnetic force for that reason dont change, you're left with a passive device that can't do work by its own.
Just face it. Overunity wont happen with magnets.
You are wrong. I have seen it. But permanent magnet overunity in large multiples is hard to achieve and is likely not to happen and thus likely not to supply lots of power.
Norman
@GammaRayBurst
@norman6538
I've been working on permanent magnet devices
and methods to get work from magnets based on an
idea that interactions with 90 degree (or near 90 degree)
changes in direction will be critical to their successful operation.
In the PDF file attached below is a design to switch off magnets
(at least partially). I don't know that it will take less work to
switch them off and then back on, than the work that can be gotten
from them as a result of the switching. I would like your feed back
/ opinions on this.
The rotations of the permanent magnets could be arrived at, by
using a method other than gearing. The central concept is the
changing of the permanent magnet orientations.
In ferrous materials the magnetic domains are in random orientations
until magnetization occurs. The device in the drawings could create
varied randomization. In my example given, randomization is simply
the alternating reversal of polarity in rows. Other magnet orientations
could also be created, by variation of the design.
There is magnetic suspension of the magnets in their holes (see first drawing).
The holes are drawn over sized for clarity.
cheers
floor
Quote from: Floor on March 23, 2015, 10:58:22 PM
@GammaRayBurst
@norman6538
I've been working on permanent magnet devices
and methods to get work from magnets based on an
idea that interactions with 90 degree (or near 90 degree)
changes in direction will be critical to their successful operation.
In the PDF file attached below is a design to switch off magnets
(at least partially). I don't know that it will take less work to
switch them off and then back on, than the work that can be gotten
from them as a result of the switching. I would like your feed back
/ opinions on this.
The rotations of the permanent magnets could be arrived at, by
using a method other than gearing. The central concept is the
changing of the permanent magnet orientations.
In ferrous materials the magnetic domains are in random orientations
until magnetization occurs. The device in the drawings could create
varied randomization. In my example given, randomization is simply
the alternating reversal of polarity in rows. Other magnet orientations
could also be created, by variation of the design.
There is magnetic suspension of the magnets in their holes (see first drawing).
The holes are drawn over sized for clarity.
cheers
floor
Floor, I like that design! I have always felt that random to order was also a way to overunity with magnets.
@GammaRayBurst
The drawings don't show it but the "magnetic current"
could lead back around (from the bottom left to the
top left) by using an additional colum of magnets.
I get ideas / inspiration from your designs (thanks)
best wishes
floor
Quote from: Floor on March 23, 2015, 11:27:02 PM
@GammaRayBurst
The drawings don't show it but the "magnetic current"
could lead back around (from the bottom left to the
top left) by using an additional colum of magnets.
I get ideas / inspiration from your designs (thanks)
best wishes
floor
Floor, I posted this years ago in different versions but no one paid any attention to them. Imagine this 5 feet long. When they are all turned up or with like poles facing in Pseudo Solid fashion it's off. When turned all in line with north to south it's a big magnet.
Butch