This topic is an extension of two previous topics
1. "Work from two magnets > 19 % output" Notice there is not a 2 at the end of the topic name.
2. "New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 ratio"
The topic is a presentation of a series of tests, exploring the possibility that work
can be done by two magnets, in a repeating cycle, without an external energy source.
At least not a source that is know / understood.
The results of the tests are, I think quite astounding, except for perhaps, that, I have now been witness
to at least one other demonstration, that I believe demonstrates work can be cyclically done by magnets.
The topic is not a light one, the materials presented are some what extensive, but certainly not out of the range of grasp
by any one who can read and who studies the presentation.
I hope you will enjoy the exploration
cheers
Thanks for sharing.
The tests are to extensive for me to reproduce, so I am just hoping you are right.
All I can add is this: if two magnets (NS-NS) are on (top of) each other, you will rather use a sideways force to get them apart, which seems to be easier as then to just take them apart as how they came together.
Me too
Notes from floor
good hunting
It looks as if many readers may not have noticed the "TDanimation.PDF file.
ABOVE
It contains a quick view / animation of the "motion set", and makes the
flow of the interactions immediately clear
CHEERS
Is there a modeling software can computate the operation?
Will the soft ware see this
floor
@ all interested
Looking at the numbers of down loads of the various PDF files, it appears
to me as if half of the readers have not noticed the "TDanimation1.PDF file.
(my fault, poor placement in the posts)
This file gives a quick view of the motions / interactions in the experiment, and
makes the interactions immediately clear.
So I am re-posting it below
Floor
@ all readers
An idea for a magnet shape, that might improve / favorably bias the start of the rotational
magnets motion.
see the jpg file below
cheers
floor
This method of matching the output of a TD (twist drive) to the input of another TD came upon me several months ago. But it was kind of unclear in my mind, (there are a lot of motions to sequence).
The problem being addressed is that the "peak force required during the input stroke is at the finish of the stroke, while the peak force of the output rotation is at the start of the rotation.
I got around to drawing a flow diagram for both a self looping and a cascading configuration.
The answer comes as a second TD unit which is based upon magnetically attracting interactions,... in combination with a first TD unit which is based upon magnetically repelling interactions.
Please see the two attached JPEG files
Best wishes
floor
Files were oversize had to shrink them
2 Dual TD cascade.png and 2 Dual TD,png
It could be designed as a circular motor, which just has 1 stator-magnet, attracting magnets on the wheel .
So, the single stator-magnet, could have an axle running through it, so that it could turn like a propellor, and then using the momentum of the wheel moving( from attraction ), that momentum of the wheel could be used to turn the single stator-magnet 90-degrees, each time a magnet on the wheel spins past .
( you can figure the rest out )
______
I have also been using the example of separating, and joining 2 magnets, to explain my idea for electrolysis of water :
http://overunity.com/8798/theoretical-efficiency-of-electrolysis/msg473379/#msg473379
______
Also, if youre bored, you can view my magnet-motor-1, and magnet-motor-2 ( and one or two others ) from the following post :
http://overunity.com/15774/permanent-magnet-motor/msg473357/#msg473357
@ guest 1289
Your pelton wheel application to magnetism is
an interesting idea.
I've seen some experimenters try to shape magnetic
fields as method to gain energy.
There might be something analogous to a pelton wheel
that could increase the efficiency of a magnet motor.
Its not my area of experimentation though.
The devices I build are to make measurements. I have not
tried to build a "motor".
I'm working (for the present) under a premise that momentum
cannot be completely maintained in any process involving a permanent
magnet OU device. This due to right angle interactions.
Energy doesn't come from nowhere.
It may have originated in the "vacuum / ether" ?
As someone one once coined it "a firmament"
It may come from "the vacuum / ether" ?
As someone one else once coined it "a permanent firmament"
Best wishes
floor
Two pdf files that show the interactions in a (3 magne)t TD unit.
Useing 3 magnets is a simplification, as it combines 1 of the
return strokes with the input stroke. This does not change
the over all input to output ratio.
1 unit's input is against replsion. the other unit's input is
against attraction. The same 19+ % greater output after the
return strokes should be present in the inout against attraction
unit, although I have not tested this.
Floor
This topic is a presentation of a simple Over Unity device.
The device is not a motor, and does not self loop.
It is designed to test a principle.
A particular set of interactions between 2 magnets along with the measurements
of these interaction are described in detail.
The interactions demonstrate > 19% over unity.
In its original form, the device is presented with, input against and output by repulsion (magnetic).
This, the latest addition to the topic, is a PDF ANIMATION of a set of interactions where in,
the input and output of the device are against magnetic attractions.
It is open source.
Yes I'm claiming that this is over unity.
Pleae see the attached "TDanimation against attraction4.pdf" below
floor
19% OU is small. I have several permanent magnet setups that give 100% OU but then
the problem is to reset so another cycle can be done and from all I have seen it takes
about 200% OU to get into a self running cycle. I did work with this idea of 2 magnets
side by side and twisting so I'll reconsider this now. Thanks for showing the ideas.
Norman
@ Norman6538
Are you you in contact with GammaRayBurst these days ?
The twist drive shows 19.131% O.U. AFTER and INCLUDEING reset to the
starting position. This is a measurement result... not a theoretical / calculation.
But does not include losses to.... friction and 2 motion reset springs.
Before reset the joules in to joules out ratio is (209 input to 301 out put).
This reduces to about 31% (if I'm remembering correctly)
Full cycling requires only the attachment of 2 light springs to the unit
to cause the return / reset strokes.
Cascading of and / or full circle cycling between multiple units is possible. I'd
do a video if this were proof... but its not. Instead I'm challenging any one,
to prove this wrong.
Floor
@ Norman 6538
Input was 76.01% of output before return / reset strokes.
100 /301.8 = 0.3313, 0.3313 x 229.41= 76.01 %.
Output was 131.5 % of input before return / reset strokes.
100 / 229.41 = 0.4359, 0.4359 x 301.8 = 131.55 %.
...................................
Output minus input minus combined return / reset strokes = 43.89.
301.8 - 229.41 - 28.5 = 43.89 (total gain after return strokes).
Total gain was 19.131 % of input, after return / reset strokes.
100 / 229.41 = 0.4359, 0.4359 x 43.89 = 19.13168 %
Output was 119.131 % greater than input, after return / reset strokes.
19.131 % is a conservative figure.
Several factors in the measurements were fudged toward more
conservative values during measurements. This was to insure
that any (my own) personal bias in favor of an O.U. out come
might be neutralized.
As one example, there is a great deal of / constant friction present during
the rotational return stroke measurement. This is due to a design flaw in
the measuring device, which causes levering upon the bearing by the shaft.
This levering, in turn causes the RO return stroke to require more input than
could realistically have been achieved if using a better bearing / shaft design.
As a result, the graph (grams x displacement for RO return), is probably
representative of about twice the work actually required for that motion.
Floor
So you're prepared to state that your device is OU to 5 signifcant digits but the apparatus is probably 'only half' as accurate as it could be.. Sounds like a recipe for 100% BS to me. I would say your measurements are not accurate enough to make any such claims. Equally likely is that the starting and ending conditions of each set of measurememts are not identical and thus do no represent the energy balance around a full cycle, as would be required to prove OU.
@LibreEnergia
Quote
"So you're prepared to state that your device is OU to 5 significant digits but the apparatus is probably 'only half' as accurate as it could be.. "
.............
Use of more than 3 significant digits in the explanations is just my habit. I have already stated this in the PDF files.
I'm prepared to state that the device and measurements show >19% more work out than in, in just the way I stated this in the files
presented.
The measureing device is probably only accurate to around 0.025.
.............
.............
Quote
"Sounds like a recipe for 100% BS to me. "
.............
.............
No coment, except that Im willing to discuss it. That is why I have posted the work here.
.............
Quote
"I would say your measurements are not accurate enough to make any such claims. "
.............
.............
I would say that they are accurate enough to make the claims.
.............
Quote
"Equally likely is that the starting and ending conditions of each set of measurements are not identical and thus do no represent the energy balance around a full cycle, as would be required to prove OU."
.............
.............
Likey yes, however they are "identical" except as detailed in the doucuments
I would very much like hear your views on this matter as well. The starting and ending conditions are explained in great detail in the files.
I'm very much interested in well stated / accurate criticism. This is a critical part of the process I am looking for.
I hope you will have / post more observations / criticisms / advice
Thanks for input input
Floor
@LibreEnergia
Addendum
Quote "So you're prepared to state that your device is OU to 5 signifcant digits but the apparatus is probably 'only half' as accurate as it could be.."
.............
Again, no, I'm not claiming 5 significant digits. 43% of the reason I include 5 digits (Some times a lot more than 5) is to see if, who is responding knows their s__t . 7% is just to stimulate certain anal retentive types, who appear to be in desperate need of taking a S__t . Then 50% is just to see big beautiful numbers come around to perfect solutions.
In reviewing your above comment, I think I now see more clearly the point you are making.
The "RO shaft / bearing" sticky characteristic I was describing gives rise to a more conservative outcome in the ratios of work in to work out....
This is to say that the work in to work out ratios would have been more O.U. if the shaft / bearing" sticky characteristic were reduced. A larger "R.O return / reset stroke" value, unfavorably decreases the output value in term of O.U.. The stick characteristic speaks in favor of my O.U. conclusion.
floor
I'm in the process of building a new measureing device. The new unit is
capable of much more precise motions. It is built useing linear and
rotary ball bearings throught.
The new unit is versital and modular so that it can be used to measureing
a wide variety of magnet interactions.
Please see the attached photos.
floor
Hi Floor,
Very nice build of your test device. Thanks for sharing.
I noticed your topic back in May and glad to see you're continuing the tests and research.
Would it be possible for you to make a video of your test device in operation? it would help answer so many question.
Thanks for your time
Luc
Hi Luc
A video of the measuring process would be cumbersome, as the measurement
process is its self... a long and tedious undertaking.
I have roughly detailed the two magnets interactions during the measurements as an animation.
It is called "TDanimation 1.PDF". It is located on the first page of this topic.
I am very willing to answer any questions you have. Also I would very much so appreciate your
asking those questions, as the questions and answers may clarify the subject for many others ?
Best wishes
floor
Thanks for the reply Floor
I had gone through your pdf documents which btw are professionally prepared. Thanks
I think I've got a good idea of what you're doing, just like to see one or two cycles (motion only) of your new test device.
How much time would it take for 2 cycles (without measurements) to occur?
Regards
Luc
@ Luc
Thank you for having given the diligence to examine the PDF docs.
The new test unit build is not yet finished. My limited and some what
primative shop space slow the process (lots of hand work).
I am in the process of building the "RO" (rotating) module.
Next will be a large dial indicator for attaching to the SL (sliding) module.
This dial indicator will be a separate module. The separation will eliminate
certain inaccuracies caused by the stretching of the SL weight string, while it is
under the influence of the heavier weight increment objects.
I could at this time, do a video of the original unit, if that will suffice ? That device
is in need of only some minor maintenance.
I could breifly demonstrate the "motion only", by first installing the mid range and then
the heaviest of the weight objects (first SL then RO while SL is near RO).
Note... such a demonstration will potentially be misleading to viewers not
understanding the details of the measuring device / process. As, both the input
and the output must occur along a "force curve" in order that work can be
cyclically done,
Again best wishes
floor
Thanks again for your reply Floor.
I would think your first test device would be fine for visually seeing the operation and effect.
If you're okay with making a quick and simple video demo I'm sure many would appreciate it.
It may also get others to experiment with the concept as well.
Thanks for your time and sharing
Luc
@ Luc
Thanks for sugesting a video, Will do.
I could use a break from the new build any way.
floor
@ Luc
I made a 5 min. vid... It came out Ok. But when I went to upload, it was very slow / upload failed, twice.
This gave me pause to reconsider the (value to the project) and the (value to other researchers)
of posting the video.
I'm interested at this point, in PR as in pear review, not PR as in public relations.
9,000 views.... 585 downloads of the first doc. What percentage of those 585 read and
understand the measurement made ??? ... I could only speculate.
VALID observations and criticisms and or clearly stated questions are more valuable to me
than large numbers of views or praise at this time, although the latter is also greatly appreciated.
Bottom line,, I'm not posting the video link at this time.
Thanks for your time and interest
best wishes
floor
Thanks Floor for considering a video demo.
All the best in your experiments
Luc
Below are some photos of the rotating (RO) module as of
yesterday's progress with the build. The biggest parts of
the build are now completed.
floor
During the 8,890 views of this topic's current incarnation, there have been no suggestions, recommendations and / or input on how one might best proceed. No critical reviews given due to an examination of the materials . No examination of and reporting of errors found within the measurement process or the graphs or of the mathematical processes used to determine the experiments outcome.
There was ONE single suggestion that the input and the output conditions during the measurements MUST be different. While this suggestion is a very good / likely answer to the problem of the impossible having been done. This was not I think, a conclusion reached through an examination of the materials. It was perhaps rather the automatic response of a conditioned mind to the probability of, easy pickens. Had that input been knowledgeable and / or more critical and examining of the actual materials presented, that person might have pointed out my error in my method of determining the "work done" during the magnet interactions. Oh well.
It appears to me that the input, output and two reset motions of the operation, will return a net gain of zero when the measurements are again made, but upon my new measuring device. This however remains to be seen. If this is the case It will help to determine both the precision and accuracy of the new device. Or it it will show O.U.....(insert laughing emoticon here).
Below are some new totals / graphs of measurements made with the original "TD" unit
and some photos of the completed "new TD" measuring device. The *.OUT files are
simple text files and can be opened with any text / word processor
best wishes
floor
It's possible that this effect is from the ceramic magnets partial demagnetization during field compression.
When ceramic magnets face a neo, the pressure reaches a point then collapses causing demagnetizing of the ceramic magnet. But when two ceramic magnets face each other there is no demagnetizing but the field still partially collapses.
Once the magnets are separated the magnetic regions that were rotated return to their original state by the remaining unaffected area of the magnets.
This means the fields would collapse quickly over the short inline stroke but over the longer rotating output stroke the fields would return and provide an increase in force over the longer distance which would explain the difference you note.
Neo's will not exhibit this effect because no demagnetizing takes place with field compression.
That's my best effort to explain your results.
@ Lumen
QUOTE FROM LUMEN
"But when two ceramic magnets face each other there is no demagnetizing but the field still partially collapses. " END QUOTE
A partial and / or temporary reversal of some of the magnetic domains within the ceramic magnets and said domains returning to their original orientations in the absents of the other field ?
Also, I agree that neos will probably behave differently. I'll try them in the future.
Interesting possible explanation,
however, I want to make it perfectly clear that.....
The RO graph has a TOTAL area of 301.8. This number represents the TOTAL area within that RO graph. This does not correctly represent the work out by the rotating motion.
The SL graph has a TOTAL area 229.41. This number represents the TOTAL area within that SL graph. Neither does this correctly represent the work in by the sliding motion.
An area of "337 for RO" and of "379 for SL" are the values of those parts of those graphs which actually represent the work by rotation (337) and work of (379) by sliding.
These two values have a completely different ratio to one another, than the TOTAL areas do to one another. In fact in the first set RO is greater than SL, while in the second set SL is the greater.
Stating that the total area of each graph was representative of the work present was a mistake on my part.
still learning
kind regards
Floor
Sorry, I was only looking at the graph and not the new area numbers.
Even so, there is a difference and it is likely due to some domain tilting or reversal within the magnets.
Suppose it's easier to tilt the domains while rotating into position than a more random twisting you might get with a straight on compression.
In either case one might believe it to be an anomaly in the magnet material rather than the process but even the process itself might imply that compressing the field straight on would take more work than forcing the field in a direction 90 degrees to the face.
There might also be some relationship in the magnet shape or proportion where a change in the magnet shape might result in an even greater variation.
@lumen
No apologies necessary , but rather, let me thank you for the well reasoned and positive input.
Were on the same page.
Cheers
Floor
@Floor
Your new machine is a very nice contraption and the experiment is very interesting. I find it interesting because it demonstrates a measuring problem:
- one needs two different mechanisms, one to push a magnet and a second to turn a magnet
- the two mechanisms have to be different (one pushes and the second turns)
- therefore the two mechanisms will have two different friction losses
- in addition the friction losses will not be the same over the operating range (more relative friction loss for small weights and less relative friction losses for heavier weights)
I can find no easy way to separate the friction losses from the measurement.
I come to the conclusion that the about 20% difference means that the overall friction loss in one mechanisms is about 20% less (ore more) than in the other mechanism.
So, you are measuring the difference in friction and not the difference in magnetic force. In theory the magnet force should be the same (if you use similar magnets) and the friction in two different mechanism should be different. And your observation seems to show exactly that. And also, sliding seems to have more friction loss than turning, which is logical.
To make progress with your contraption one has to find a way to "separate" the friction losses from the magnetic force measurement. And unfortunately I have no idea how to do that.
I like to make a prediction: if one uses very big magnets and very heavy weights (several kilos) the difference in friction losses will be smaller (in case the machine is mechanically well built) because the friction losses will be smaller in comparison to the magnet force involved.
As in all OU machines, measurement is the challenge.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on August 12, 2016, 08:15:16 AM
@Floor
Your new machine is a very nice contraption and the experiment is very interesting. I find it interesting because it demonstrates a measuring problem:
- one needs two different mechanisms, one to push a magnet and a second to turn a magnet
- the two mechanisms have to be different (one pushes and the second turns)
- therefore the two mechanisms will have two different friction losses
- in addition the friction losses will not be the same over the operating range (more relative friction loss for small weights and less relative friction losses for heavier weights)
I can find no easy way to separate the friction losses from the measurement.
I come to the conclusion that the about 20% difference means that the overall friction loss in one mechanisms is about 20% less (ore more) than in the other mechanism.
So, you are measuring the difference in friction and not the difference in magnetic force. In theory the magnet force should be the same (if you use similar magnets) and the friction in two different mechanism should be different. And your observation seems to show exactly that. And also, sliding seems to have more friction loss than turning, which is logical.
To make progress with your contraption one has to find a way to "separate" the friction losses from the magnetic force measurement. And unfortunately I have no idea how to do that.
I like to make a prediction: if one uses very big magnets and very heavy weights (several kilos) the difference in friction losses will be smaller (in case the machine is mechanically well built) because the friction losses will be smaller in comparison to the magnet force involved.
As in all OU machines, measurement is the challenge.
Greetings, Conrad
@Conrad
The device was vibrated to remove as much friction as possible at each point so I believe it's worth further investigation.
I have done many magnetic force interaction tests and always found the total results to be very close meaning there is no OU.
I use CNC machines to hold and move the magnets and the results are measured with a digital scale.
Because the magnet under test is attached to a digital scale and never actually moves any friction is reduced to near zero.
At some point I will be testing the interaction of Floor's claim but even a negative on my testing does not invalidate the claim because the actual reason for the difference may not have been tested in my test. It may not be as simple as the path the magnets travel.
Quote from: lumen on August 12, 2016, 09:55:34 AM
I use CNC machines to hold and move the magnets and the results are measured with a digital scale.
Because the magnet under test is attached to a digital scale and never actually moves any friction is reduced to near zero.
Clever idea to fix the magnet to a digital scale! I also like the very precise positioning with a CNC machine.
Quote from: lumen on August 12, 2016, 09:55:34 AM
At some point I will be testing the interaction of Floor's claim but even a negative on my testing does not invalidate the claim because the actual reason for the difference may not have been tested in my test. It may not be as simple as the path the magnets travel.
It is a well known fact, that negative proof is not possible (because one could have overlooked some essential parameter). So lets hope you find a difference in some two paths which you are able to test.
But I think that what we know about electromagnetism rules that out.
1) There could be a difference going down to the level of particles (sub-atomic size) or in the very large (cosmological scale). Both areas are not easy to access.
2) It could also be, that moving magnets at a very high frequency (beyond Terra-Hertz) causes some strange relativistic effect (moving two magnets near the speed of light relative to each other). But this is almost impossible to do.
3) And finally, cooling a magnet down to absolute zero ( -272 C°) could make it behave strangely. Which would need a very good refrigerator.
All areas not thoroughly examined yet (since the 19th century) are not open to the home experimenter.
A pet science thing of mine is "mechanical resonance" (not "electromagnetic resonance in an oscillator"). In the 19th century they did a lot of things with crystals and resonance (but it was mostly esoterica).
Most musical instruments exhibit nice mechanical resonance effects. If you tune a musical instrument to a resonance frequency of a wine glass, you can make the wine glass sing along (very muted at a certain note). Tuning the wine glass by partly filling it with water is not very effective, because the water damps the vibration of the glass.
Mechanical resonance will probably not show OU but could be an effective way to heat something or to move something (conveyors or pumps).
Greetings, Conrad
Just to show how much the shape of the magnet can affect it's character I uploaded this short video.
https://youtu.be/ZoDg6hVHttU
With the attraction shown, one might think that some of the work may not be equal in all cases.
Good little demonstration of how the "fields" must wrap around in order for like poles to stick together at their so-called Bloch Wall.
Quite revealing. Thanks for posting that clip.
@ConradElectro
QUOTE FROM Conradelektro
"Your new machine is a very nice contraption and the
experiment is very interesting. I find it interesting because
it demonstrates a measuring problem: " END QUOTE
Agreement, yes an interesting problem.
The original "TD" measuring device was too crude to
facilitated any meaningful friction measurements.
Measurements made for the SL will be made to approach equilibrium from
both directions of the sliding motion to test if equilibrium of the forces has truly been
found.. Details of this process will be given with those measurements.
The new unit will be vibrated to facilitate the rapid arriving at the
equilibrium of forces, as was the original TD unit. I believe that
adding vibration is a valid method of eliminating the friction under
the measurement conditions.
Realistic simulation of both, the RO friction-conditions and friction
might be be arrived at by a complicated process. With the magnets removed
and incremental weights / counterweights installed (each weight = 1/2 total
weight for that increment). Then a third weight on the same pulley to measure the
friction. Or something like that... This could establish a basis for validating or
invalidating the vibrating method. Don't know though ?
Measurements of the state of the forces at the beginning of each set, and measurements
of the friction (magnets not in place) and others will be made as the process unfolds.
Let me contemplate your other suggestions / ideas until later.
As usual thank you for your observations.
best wishes
Floor
@Lumen
Yes I see it (video). Reshaping in the external field.
This is in align with and as a first part of the exploration.
On another side of the exploration or additionally...
Does it require more energy to reorient or partially reorient
the domains (internal) then energy that could be gained from
that reorientation, under all conditions.
Some parameters / details in photo form, below.
floor
correction
In the top paragraph in the "NewParam3.png" photo,
It should read Ro weight string is in place, rather than
"SL string is in place"
floor floor
NewTDparameters 2.
The SL rails are inclined upwardly toward the RO magnet, by some
where between 0.5 and 0.75 degrees during the following practice
run, device calibration and testing (NewParam6.PNG photo). This
as to reliably insure that the SL rails were not inclined in the other direction.
70 mm of string (0.5grams) hang below, both the RO and the SL pulleys,
when their respective scales read at 45 degrees (NewParam5.PNG photo).
The weight of the figure of 8 knots (0.016 grams), which keeps the RO
and SL strings from slipping through the 1/16 inch diameter holes in the
pulleys are negated.
The SL scale counter weight, weighs 4.425 grams. The weight of the fine
thread by which it is suspended in negated (NewParam5.PNG photo).
With the SL magnet replaced with a non magnetic dummy weight
(NewParam7.PNG photo), it requires 8.425 grams on the SL weight string
to cause the SL sledge to reliably move toward the RO magnet (with vibration).
The 8.425 grams (SL weight ) minus the 4.425 grams (SL scale counter weight)
is equal to 4 grams. Adding the weight of the SL weight string (0.5grams)
brings the total weight required to cause SL's sliding (with vibration) toward
RO, to 4.5 grams.
It required 4.425grams less weight, upon the SL string in the absence of
the SL scale counter weight.
In the absence of the 8.425 grams of weight upon the SL weight string, the
SL sledge moves away from the RO magnet (with vibration).
It requires less than 4.5 grams to motivate the SL sledge when the
sledge is level.
Other test are to follow.
floor
@ConradElectro
(Quote from ConradElectro)
"I like to make a prediction: if one uses very big magnets and very heavy weights (several kilos) the difference in friction losses will be smaller (in case the machine is mechanically well built) because the friction losses will be smaller in comparison to the magnet force involved."
(END QUTE)
Agreement.
The friction losses in the greater force interactions are a lesser percentage as compared to friction losses during the lesser force interactions, when using these "weak" magnets, but while useing this "mechanically more well built machine".
but also while using the current, "mechanically more well built machine".
regards
floor
@ Lumen
CNC machines, a digital scale and friction is reduced to near zero.
very very cool
regards
floor
Hey big dogs and so on.
Below is a video link to a particular set of interactions / measurements, done on the new
TD unit.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4p1ome_magnet-force-test_tech
That video is PASS WORD PROTECTED at this time.
You can PM me for the pass word.
I ask that you do not "share" the pass word. I will probably unlock the video
in a few days any way.
Please just ask me and, I will most likely give you the pass word.
Cheers
floor
@Floor
So to get this right,
You are showing that the weight on the "Linear Slide" is lighter and travels less than the weight it's lifting on the Rotary axis which travels further and is heavier?
It's an interesting setup for sure.
@lumen
Yes, the sliding SLedge displacement is from 12 deg. to 34 deg on the degree
scale, as gravity pulls the SL weight down. The SL weight is 158 grams.
The displacement (mm) of the SL weight, is indicated by the degrees of
rotation on the SL dial.
This is a common type of device, and used to indicate a displacement with a needle
upon dial face.
The ratio of the circumference of the SL scale pulley, to the circumference traveled
in the larger arc of the SL scale needle tip, is a fixed ratio. It is simply the ratio of
the two circumferences to one another.
This makes very small magnet movements visible as larger movements by the needle.
It magnify s the motion and makes finer increments of readings possible.
The ROtational scale does the same thing in terms of the RO weight, and with an
identical ratio of pulley circumference to needle tip arc circumference.
It's just that in the case of the SL side if the actions, a linear and horizontal displacement
(of the SLedge), as well as the fall distance of the SL weight is indicated by the needle.
.....................................................
What you see in the video is SL weight (158 grams) falls about 1/2 the distance that the
RO weight (168 grams) is lifted.
43 degrees on the RO scale, and 22 degrees on the SL scale.
The RO weight travels only 1/43 less than twice the distance of SLand yet
the RO weight is 10 grams heavier than the SL weight.
........................................................
But, by definition...... no net work is done.....
unless the two magnets can be returned to their original or starting positions ....
with out doing the same amount of work as is done by the difference in work
between these 2 other actions, ie. 158 grams lifted by 22 degrees (in) : 168 grams lifted
by 43 degrees (out).
As seemingly amazing as the actions are, the video is just an interesting and dramatic demo.
But then those actions are not... precisely... the interactions that need measuring.
floor
A little math,
I have converted the rotation degrees into the mm of weight
displacement. see the PNG files below
floor
Thanks Floor for your work and measurement posts. You like me have an OU device
which I believe proves that not all energy/work done is conserved. However many
don't believe the measurements but insist on a self running device. I have a magnet
setup that is over 100% but my estimate is that it takes about 200% to get self
running. So no one has any interest in my devices because with heads in the sand they think - no OU unless it self runs. And I say Faraday and others did not start out
with a 3 phase AC motor. They got there step by step and so can we.
Keep at it Floor.
Norman
Thanks Norman
You too
I heard a lecturer once say "Our goals become our limitations"
I am not in some respects very qualified for this undertaking. This
project is in fact, the first time in my life that I have ever under taken
to measure and graph force interactions. Typos abound during
my late night sessions, and when I am burning the candle at both ends.
Note..Although cut and paste writing methods are very time efficient,
they also give rise to their own unique variety of typo. ah ha !
The process I am engaged in, has two main parts
..........................................................
A first part is to measure sets of force interactions between the
RO magnet and the SL magnet to determine the optimum work-out
to work-in ratios. These measurements must include the work done,
to return both RO and SL to their starting positions.
Yes, I'm attempting O.U..
There are many many fascinating possibilities of variations in
magnet shapes to explore. One could, I think, spend years
exploring this aspect alone.
At little later point in this letter, I will give some details, of one
of the magnet shapes, I would like to examine in the near future.
...........................................
A second part of the process, is to measure and map a force helix
between the RO and SL magnets.
Quote from Spok (The wrath of Kahn)
"He's intelligent but lacks experience. Analysis shows, his thinking
is two dimensional."
............................................
SHAPE
1. A slight "propeller edge" on (the facing each other) edges, of the RO and SL magnets.
There exists a drawing of this, in previous postings.
2. A longer (along it's long axis) SL magnet then the RO magnet (along it's long axis).
or
3. A longer (along it's long axis) RO magnet then the SL magnet (along it's long axis).
In any case (1, 2 or 3), the magnets are still centered to one another during force measurements.
...............................................
DIRECTION OF APPROACH
I have a working hypothesis (for the time being). understanding NEAR right angle interactions
in the electric and magnetic fields are the key to O.U..
...............................................
THE NEXT VIDEO.
Why NEAR right angle.
Consider this:
I have a 1 pound weight hanging on a spring.
I then place a lever under this weight with a fulcrum in the center of the lever.
I place another 1 pound weight on the far end of the lever and raise the weight on the spring.
Shifting the fulcrum, I find I can raise the weight on spring two times higher than the one on the lever moves.
With further testing I find the optimal position of the fulcrum and find I can raise the weight over 3 times higher at it's best point.
What I'm actually testing are simply the dynamics of the spring and there is no OU.
@lumen
Yes agreement
You are simply adding the energy (the weight lifted) which you stored
in the spring, when the weight was first lowered onto the spring.
There is no net gain. The work you did by lifting the weight (energy stored),
and then the work done by gravity to compress the spring (energy transferred)
are equal (before friction loss). Applying leverage to the actions does not change
this fact.
And similarly, THERE IS NO NET GAIN in either energy, or the work done
in the actions that occur in the video.
See my post, (which I think you missed?). Just read the last few preceding
posts (yours and mine).
All is well, I believe you and I, are both interpreting the events in the video correctly.
floor
@ lumen
QUOTE FROM FLOOR
" But, by definition...... no net work is done.....
unless the two magnets can be returned to their original or starting positions ....
with out doing the same amount of work as is done by the difference in work
between these 2 other actions, ie. 158 grams lifted by 22 degrees (in) : 168 grams lifted
by 43 degrees (out).
As seemingly amazing as the actions are, the video is just an interesting and dramatic demo.
But then those actions are not... precisely... the interactions that need measuring"
END OF QUOTE
I think you and I, have both correctly understanding the interactions in the video.
That was my goal up to this point. I'm glad to see that we are both still on the same page.
Awsome!
floor
The presentation is not yet complete.
At this point the presentation has not demonstrated OU.
next is
It's all about nipping a little bit off both ends of the
rotational (out put) movement and how this effects
the return / reset strokes
It allows the resets to the starting position to cost
very little work or energy input.
floor
Both videos are open to the public now.
The link to the first video is
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4p1ome_magnet-force-test_tech
The link to the second video is
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4phd00_newtd2_tech
floor
@ lumen
Basically the videos were done just to give people an opportunity to
look under the hood of the TD and kick the tires a little bit.
I hope the videos were useful / gave you a better feel for
the TD interactions, and what changes give rise to what changes.
I did some drawings / analysis using your spring analogy to the
TD magnet interactions.
Also some explanations of close up ceramic magnet interactions.
see the PNG files below.
?? Have you data on neo magnets in close proximity and domain flipping ??
floor
The files below are some explanation of domain flipping in magnets,
and at the beginning of the twist drive's slideing(SL) return / reset stroke.
Thanks floor for sharing your videos and details.
I'm still following your topic with interest even though I have much on my plate.
Kind regards
Luc
@gotoluc
Thanks
Understood and appreciated.
floor
More looking around under the TD hood
Please see the next 3 PNG and 1 JPG file.
floor
I didn't reaaly want to get into a mechanical leverage discussion in this topic,
But lumen brought brought a lever into the discussion.
I then picked it up and proceeded to hit my self in the head with it.
Several times in fact, untill my sences returned.
Below are 5 PNG pics. of springs and leverage redone.
floor
Quote from: Floor on August 29, 2016, 07:27:53 PM
I didn't reaaly want to get into a mechanical leverage discussion in this topic,
You want work from 2 magnets watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRHD6lo-aKc
PS don't wast too much time on this joke !
enjoy AG
@AlienGrey
Yes, you surely have wasted peoples time in posting that video here.
enjoy floor
Ive been waiting for the right time to publish these last 2 graphs.
These are for real, and very close approximations.
Any body can replicate and verify them for their self.
hoorah
floor
Files would not upload
floor
One more pic.
I hope none of this is an interfearance with the pattent / topic discussed
in ..... Miller Colson Magnetic Motor coming to market ?
floor
Quote from: Floor on September 08, 2016, 11:43:33 AM
One more pic.
I hope none of this is an interfearance with the pattent / topic discussed
in ..... Miller Colson Magnetic Motor coming to market ?
floor
It does appear to have some similarities.
I hope they both work but I feel there must be something missed somewhere.
@umen
Yes there are definitely similarities.
I don't know what to say, except that I have done
my measurement sets repeatedly now, and with increasing
care, and in smaller increments. The results are still hard for
me to believe. even though seeing is believing.
I don't think the guys in the video are idiots.
I think they know exactly what they have.
My design is the easier of the two to replicate !
I know what I been measuring and it is no trick, illusion
nor error. I no longer have any doubts about it. It's O.U..
Also, the device I have built is more complex than it has to be.
This was in order that I can do a variety of tests.
Others could replicate in a similar but simpler test device design.
I may have verification by others using my device, in a couple of weeks
any way. I have been in discussion with two separate individuals (both highly qualified)
who may use my device to run the measurements for their selves.
This remains to be seen however, as no dates have been set.
best wishes
floor
Quote from: Floor on August 26, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
The files below are some explanation of domain flipping in magnets,
and at the beginning of the twist drive's slideing(SL) return / reset stroke.
What torque readings do you have between the two crossing magnets?
Vidar
@Vidar
Quote from Vidar
"What torque readings do you have between the two crossing magnets?" End quote
Sorry to have taken so long to reply, been very busy, and will
still be for another day or so.
The only measurements for torque on the ROtating magnet are those
in the RO graph. Torque goes from a min. to a max "and is different /"changes with each increment
of rotation and / or increment of change in distance by the SLideing magnet" .
The only torque quage I currently have access to is badly out of calibrration.
Quote from: Floor on September 11, 2016, 11:49:42 PM
@Vidar
Quote from Vidar
"What torque readings do you have between the two crossing magnets?" End quote
Sorry to have taken so long to reply, been very busy, and will
still be for another day or so.
The only measurements for torque on the ROtating magnet are those
in the RO graph. Torque goes from a min. to a max "and is different /"changes with each increment
of rotation and / or increment of change in distance by the SLideing magnet" .
The only torque quage I currently have access to is badly out of calibrration.
OK. I was just worried about any possible counter torque that will prevent things to work correctly.
I hope you make this device work, and whish you good luck :-)
Keep us posted.
Vidar
Below are an excerpt and a quote from Millers "magnetic drive apparatus" patent. US 8,487,484 B1
"An apparently unrecognized requirement is the need to periodically relax the the drive components in order to facilitate continuous reciprocating movement."
..........................................................................
NEXT
I now have my first independent confirmation of work in... to... work out ratios in the new TD unit.
That person spent about 12 hours total over a three day period. He used his own weights, scales, measuring
devices. He did complete sets of measurements (of RO and SL interactions),
Checked several tolerances within the TD device, using a wiggler and or dial indicator.
RO shaft end play was hand forced to 0.010 inch.
all pulleys within the assembly (for eccentricity) were found to be no more than to 0.010 eccentric
Photo graphed all of his measurements
Found NO discrepancies between his own measurements of input (SL) to output (RO) and my last posted measurements.
He is the first person to notice / comment that the TD is UNDER UNITY as opposed to either AT UNITY or OVER UNITY (at least as presented in the back wards manner In which I have proceeded). Ive been waiting for some one to make that observation.
floor
@floor
I was doing some testing in a 3D simulator for any gain from the twisting or sliding together of thin magnets and it appears that it is possible to achieve a gain.
Like in the clip I posted where two long thin magnets can pull together repelling faces due to the attraction to the back side faces being stronger than the area of repelling faces.
It appears the back side face connection also assists in the rotation to the full repelling face alignment which allows for less work to rotate the magnets into alignment than what is required to directly force together the repelling faces. Very much the same as you are testing or maybe the concept of the Miller machine.
@ lumen
I think that The "back side face connection" and / or the
domain re orientations are factors... but it appears to me that
primarily, the force interactions in rotating as opposed to sliding
magnet approaches are fundamentally different from those found
in the case of any known mechanical linkage.
In other words, I'm saying that while convention would lead us toward
conventional mechanics in search of explanation, the primary explanation
for the O.U. simply can not be found there.
Back side interactions are not dominant in the "twist drive" interactions...
the magnets are polarized on the broad sides and it is a deep reach to
what would be considered their back sides.
But were still on the same page.
thanks
floor
As per always these designs are given into the public domain.
PS please find the attached PNG file
File would not up load.
I don't know why the PNG file is so over size. JPGs yes...
but first time one of a PNG has turned up so large.
(Better to rigkt click and then click on view rather than
scroll aroung on the PNG)
note
RO magnets and SL magnets can be sequenced as in the above file, but aslo the number of
magnets used is not limited to that number in the PNG file.
Output by SL, can be based around attraction of SL to RO, repultion of SL to RO or combinations of both.
depending upon magnet orientations.
Multiple parallel TD units may be benificially mechanically linked.
@floor
I agree that there is little back face interaction when the poles are on the magnets sides and are twisted together as in your setup and there would need to be something else going on to see any OU effects.
The EDEN project was one of the first magnet interactions I tested and found by using a digital scale instead of the spring scale they used, I found no extra force in their experiment.
Then recently after reading again that the effect was greater using thin magnets over the cubes originally used, I thought it might be worth testing again and also because the Miller device appears to use the same concept.
Putting some logic behind the reason for the claimed OU gain is why I thought the connection to the back side faces assisting in the rotation may be the source.
@lumen
Its all good.
floor
If I may add some tips and tricks to this thread.
When you calculate gain, it is very important to calculate the energy, not forces alone.
I say this because there is so many misconseptions about force.
Most people forget to take the distance, either in the form of linear motion or rotational motion into account.
A linear force, or rotational force (torque) can not alone be responsible for the overall performance.
Say you have two electric motors for example.
If both motors, motor 1 and motor 2, have a torque of, say 10Nm each.
Motor 1 achieve this torque at 1000RPM and motor 2 achieve this torque at 2000RPM.
Both motor 1 and 2 have the same torque, and the misconseption is that both motors would cancel eachother out if working agains each other.
However, motor 2 delivers 2 times more energy than motor 1. Therfor, motor 2 will win the competition between the two.
If you place a gear ratio on motor 2, so the shaft spins at 1000RPM and the same as motor 1, the torque would be 20Nm. Therfor motor 2 will win.
A practical experiment with two magnets, where you look at the forces to separate them in two ways. Just as an example.
1-One way is to pull them directly apart. This require 10N of force.
2-The other way is to slide them apart. This require 1N of force.
1-It require a very short distance of separation to take them apart.
2-It requires 10 times the distance to take them apart.
The energy input to separate them are therfor the same. Calculating energy is the very essence.
If you have a rotational device, and calculate torques in 1 degree steps for example.
You can take each sample and multiply with the number of samples. 10 samples for 10 degree motion.
Then you take the result and devide by 10 to get the average torque over 10 degree motion.
Examples of readings of two interacting rotors:
1 - 10Nm, 8Nm, 5Nm, 2Nm, 0.5Nm, 0.4Nm, 0.3Nm, 0.2Nm, 0.1Nm. Sum=26.5Nm/10 samples = 2.65Nm average @ 10° rotation.
2 - 2.65Nm, 2.65Nm, 2.65Nm, 2.65Nm, 2.65Nm, 2.65Nm, 2.65Nm, 2.65Nm, 2.65Nm, 2.65Nm. Sum 26.5/10 samples = 2,65Nm average @ 10°rotation.
I have done this wrong so many times, untill I suddenly realized that I need to figure out the total energy, not only torque or force.
Then I got the explanation why the practical experiment failed every time - because the product of force and motion was the same and opposite.
Vidar
@Low-Q
Thanks vidar
...................
At all (interested) readers
Energy (kinetic)= force times displacement.
The joule is a unit of measurement of both energy and work.
1 joule is the amount of energy expended in doing the work of lifting about 102
grams of weight, a distance of 1 meter (in standard gravity).
............................
The newton is a unit of measurement of force.
1 newton of force (by definition) is the force needed to ACCELERATE a 1 kilogram mass
(against a resistance to acceleration, which is due solely to the inertia of that mass)
at the rate of 1 meter per second per each second (1m/s/s or 1m/s^2) that the 1
newton of force is applied.
......................................
A 1 kilogram mass exerts 9.80665 (about 10) newtons of force down in Earth's standard gravity.
This because all objects (small objects) in near Earth gravity free fall accelerate at the rate of
9.80665 meters per second per each second that they free fall.
A force causing a 1 kilogram mass to accelerate at the rate of 9.80665 m/s/s is therefore, a force of
9.80665 newtons.
The greater the mass of an attracted object the greater also is the force exerted upon it, under a given
gravitational influence.
The greater the mass of an attracted object the greater also is it's weight, under that given
gravitational influence.
........................................
About 102 grams of mass, (or weight in standard gravity) exerts a force of 1 newton down.
1 newton of force causing a 1 meter displacement of an object requires an energy transfer of 1 joule of energy. , or one can also say that 1 joule of work is done..
1 joule is the amount of energy expended in doing the work of lifting about 102
grams of weight, a distance of 1 meter (in standard gravity).
In the Twist Drive (TD) measurements, the degrees upon the degree scales represent an amplification of the mm of fall, that the applied weights move during the increments of measurement..
Thank you again vidar.
floor
@floor
It's interesting that after running extensive tests in a 3d simulator at 1% error, it does in fact show that a gain in energy is present.
The strange thing is that the gain that it indicates is just slightly over 25%. Though your setup is a bit different it seems the results are nearly the same.
If the results are within 1% at each position and there are 18 positions tested, then it seems it could be off as much as 18% if all tests were off in the same direction and near 1%.
I need to either lower the error to .1% or build a device to test the interaction and collect actual results.
An error measured in % is a relative figure. If you measure +1% error at a million samples per cycle, you still got only 1% error - not a million %.
So your simulations would be correct with an uncertainty of 1%. However, the longer steps you take for each sample, you might miss a lot in between. For example if you missed out a small area where the counter torque is very great.
That said, if the torque has the same sign all around one revolution, and not change sign from + to - the other half, it is probably a working design.
Vidar
@lumen
Thank you for all your efforts.
My hope is that you can find the time for a replication.
I have been looking for some one willing to do a replication for what seem a long time now.
One replication might lead to many others, and (a real body of evidence, for or against).
best wishes
floor
@Floor
Is it any way to make your design small? I would like to make a try building it with small neo-magnets. I have different sizes and shapes. What shape would you prefer?
Maybe some sort of building instructions would be nice.
Vidar
@Low-Q
For starters, and for verification purposes, inexspensive ceramic magnets shoulkd be used.
Also, the magnets ,should be as nearly identicle to those used in my device as is possible.
The magnets I have used were aboyt $ 2 (US).
I have been developing an easy to build design, and I'll let you know as that design progresses.
floor
Quote from: Floor on September 19, 2016, 12:44:31 PM
@Low-Q
For starters, and for verification purposes, inexspensive ceramic magnets shoulkd be used.
Also, the magnets ,should be as nearly identicle to those used in my device as is possible.
The magnets I have used were aboyt $ 2 (US).
I have been developing an easy to build design, and I'll let you know as that design progresses.
floor
Cheap magnets are great for starters. However, all the friction you might have in the system is like noise. A weak signal covered by noise, is very hard to analyze correctly. If you use stronger magnets, the experiment is easier to analyze as you suppress the noise using a stronger "signal".
As a temporary solution, you might even use electromagnets running on AC to generate a stronger magnetic field.
I know AC will change polarity 50 or 60 times per second, but the same happens to both electro magnets at the same time.
So the experiment would probably be a better success in terms of analyzing.
Vidar
Hi Vidar
I used neo's 1/8 x 1/2 x 1-1/2 in the simulator because I have these exact magnets to do the real test.
I also think the reason for the gain is understandable in both floor's design and the way I used them which is a bit different.
Take the case of floor's design in which the poles are on the sides and when rotated parallel both poles are pushing. But when they come together as a cross at 90 degrees to each other, there is almost no repulsion.
The cause of the gain is because the cross position allows a connection of the poles that assist the rotation towards the repelling position even though it's in fact resisting that direction and would move away into the aligned attract position, there is still an assist that is easily seen in FEMM field lines.
This assist allows the magnets to rotate into position with less energy. In floor's layout the assist only helps up to about 30 degrees from the parallel or full repelling position because the thickness of the magnets prevent further assisting.
Of course this is only a theory but there is some logic to it once you see it.
@Lumen / vidar
Really, I'd like to just get out of the way of the project at this point, and see what others come up with.
Except that I also would like to see precise measurements and evaluations, that can be compared meaningfully to my own.
But, this is all in the public domain.. . and of course people can do what ever it is they prefer to with it.
I'm sure that there are a large number of variations in magnet shape and strength worth checking out.
A week ago, I formed a u shaped magnet configuration on the slider side, by clamping 3 magnets in place of just the one. The RO magnet fit between 2 of the magnets and butted up to the third one as in " normal" operation. This radically changed the interactions.
It would be nice to seeing a spin off topic, just for the purpose of those many variations.
But, I what I would really like to see under this topic, are replications, which are of similar enough interactions, that hey could will validate the present design. I hope people can understand why I think this is important at this point. While keeping these things in mind, it's all good and I say, lets go for it.
best wishes
floor
Hi Floor,
thanks for the newer data and details.
My thinking cap is on to try to cum up with a simple gotoluc build ;)
I found this video that looks to be related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdugDt7KoYY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdugDt7KoYY)
If you have any ideas drawn up that you would share, I may be able to think of other possibilities.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on September 19, 2016, 09:33:10 PM
Hi Floor,
thanks for the newer data and details.
My thinking cap is on to try to cum up with a simple gotoluc build ;)
I found this video that looks to be related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdugDt7KoYY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdugDt7KoYY)
If you have any ideas drawn up that you would share, I may be able to think of other possibilities.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
That is some overly complicated device but it is similar in operation.
I think it would be best to start with something simple to prove a working concept.
Some theory as to how the energy is gained would be helpful since it would be required to quickly improve the output.
Qoute from Luc "I found this video that looks to be related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdugDt7KoYY" END QUOTE
Awsome... looks like the twist drive to the T, except that the T stands for Torque...pun intended
Also, it looks like supporing eveidence is starting to pile up.
so cool.
thanks all
floor
How much energy is required to turn magnet 3 in that video?
If both magnets are rectangular, they would be hard to turn 90 degrees of each other.
I know about the slide-force-part, and that require less force to do, but what about the displacement needed to slide them apart?
Would the displacement needed for sliding be 4 times the displacement needed to pull the magnets directly apart?
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on September 20, 2016, 10:20:39 AM
How much energy is required to turn magnet 3 in that video?
If both magnets are rectangular, they would be hard to turn 90 degrees of each other.
I know about the slide-force-part, and that require less force to do, but what about the displacement needed to slide them apart?
Would the displacement needed for sliding be 4 times the displacement needed to pull the magnets directly apart?
Vidar
I'm sure it depends on the shape of the magnets but you can bet it's not the 25% as he is claiming.
From his sketches I would think it would be closer to 80-90%.
With all the moving parts in that design I'm sure any gain would be quickly lost to friction.
@GoToLuc
Thanks, I'm thinking on / looking for some simple design, but pretty much stumped / busy at present.
@ Lumen and Low-Q
I also think the mechanical linkage design, in the Jessie R. Johnson video would be a very ineffective one,
But also I think the sketch was probably just intended to illustrate the idea of / necessity of... mechanical
linkage and timing of RO and SL in order to get cyclic operation.
floor
Quote from: Floor on September 20, 2016, 08:07:24 PM
@GoToLuc
Thanks, I'm thinking on / looking for some simple design, but pretty much stumped / busy at present.
@ Lumen and Low-Q
I also think the mechanical linkage design, in the Jessie R. Johnson video would be a very ineffective one,
But also I think the sketch was probably just intended to illustrate the idea of / necessity of... mechanical
linkage and timing of RO and SL in order to get cyclic operation.
floor
I'm thinking more along the line of the Steorn nodding donkey!
Is it possible that they really did have something and couldn't release it because it wasn't theirs?
I'm setting up now to do some actual measurements on real magnets both to see how close the results match the simulator and to collect some real data before building anything.
@gotoluc
Lumens nodding donkey idea sounds to me like a good starting place
for a simple desigh ?
@Low-Q
Are you looking into electro magnet design variations ? see the design
posted below
best wishes
floor
My test measurements on the real magnets produced a gain of only 12%.
That is about half of what the simulation suggested and is what I consider to be within error limits where there may actually be no gain at all.
My scale was not accurate enough to detect the weaker forces of the small magnets with a resolution of only 10 grams and so may possibly account for some error.
The good news is that it does indicate a possible gain.
@Lumen
Can you give us details.
Which magnets were used.. type and dimensions.
What were the magnet orientations.
What degrees of rotation for RO magnet from parallel to 90 off.
SL maximum and minimum distances from SL were.
graphs and so on.
Thanks floor
Quote from: Floor on September 22, 2016, 03:16:52 PM
@Lumen
Can you give us details.
Which magnets were used.. type and dimensions.
What were the magnet orientations.
What degrees of rotation for RO magnet from parallel to 90 off.
SL maximum and minimum distances from SL were.
graphs and so on.
Thanks floor
I will put it together so it's easy to understand, plus it would be good if someone else went through the data and calculated the result also to make sure us old guys didn't forget something. :o
I found another scale that would work really well with collecting forces on my CNC machine.
It can take readings and save the data using an external input switch.
So I could have the machine make moves and it could instruct the scale when to save the data.
That means that I could map all data points over the RO rotation at every step/distance along the SL.
Wow, that kind of gives me a headache.
@lumen
Believe me, I understand that these measurements sets turn into a lot of numbers.
My measurements have all been done by hand.
Do what you can as you can.
But please let us know the basics at this point
12% ... understood.
But which magnet alignments were they ?
Lumens X ie pole to pole ?
or
floors X ie Polar edges to Polar edges ?
thanks
floor
So here are the results that I calculated to have a gain of about 12% excess output over input.
I tried to make it easy with all steps including the rotation move to be .05"
You can see from the negative number in the data, that near the end of the sequence the magnets pull together.
The magnets at their zero spacing have about .03" gap in all the tests.
I also added a short animation of the entire sequence.
Thanks Lumen
sumthun to study contemplate
floor
Quote from: lumen on September 23, 2016, 12:39:21 AM
So here are the results that I calculated to have a gain of about 12% excess output over input.
I tried to make it easy with all steps including the rotation move to be .05"
You can see from the negative number in the data, that near the end of the sequence the magnets pull together.
The magnets at their zero spacing have about .03" gap in all the tests.
I also added a short animation of the entire sequence.
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/dlattach/attach/160341/ (http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/dlattach/attach/160341/)
What is the torque readings you got here? It looks like you have only calculated the linear force between the magnets.
EDIT: Or is the Force readings actually torque? in Pic2? If it is, it require about 7.32 Joule to turn the magnet 90 degrees. You get 0.11 Joule in repulsion in Pic3...(???)
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on September 23, 2016, 04:35:33 AM
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/dlattach/attach/160341/ (http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/dlattach/attach/160341/)
What is the torque readings you got here? It looks like you have only calculated the linear force between the magnets.
EDIT: Or is the Force readings actually torque? in Pic2? If it is, it require about 7.32 Joule to turn the magnet 90 degrees. You get 0.11 Joule in repulsion in Pic3...(???)
Vidar
Vidar
The torque is the force at a radius of .5093 from the center pivot point.
At this distance, a 90 degree rotation causes a linear movement of .800" inch.
This keeps the travel distance and step size equal over all tests.
I simply added all the forces in each set and divided by the number of steps to get the average step force for each set.
You need to find the average so the zero readings are included over the full distance traveled.
Quote from: lumen on September 23, 2016, 10:59:19 AM
Vidar
The torque is the force at a radius of .5093 from the center pivot point.
At this distance, a 90 degree rotation causes a linear movement of .800" inch.
This keeps the travel distance and step size equal over all tests.
I simply added all the forces in each set and divided by the number of steps to get the average step force for each set.
You need to find the average so the zero readings are included over the full distance traveled.
OK. I don't think I understood that :D
What software are you using to measure forces in 3D?
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on September 23, 2016, 12:41:37 PM
OK. I don't think I understood that :D
What software are you using to measure forces in 3D?
Vidar
The measurements in the pictures were made from real magnets using a digital scale and CNC machines to apply the forces.
It's intent was to verify the forces indicated in software using "Maxwell 3D"
It appears that both software and the real tests produced similar curves for each test.
The software used N35 magnets and the real tests used N42 and might explain some of the difference in results.
I have a larger set of magnets (1/8 x 1.00 x 2.00) that are much stronger and it might be interesting to test in the same fashion to see if the results are similar.
These larger magnets should have forces more suited to my scales range and the variation in shape should change the result for better or worse.
I also have another set that are very strong (.50 x 1.00 x 2.00) that could be tested in a similar test or with the parallel orientation as in floor's tests.
Because these are all neodymium magnets there is likely no domain shifting within the magnets and the only theory I might have for gain in energy would be that the field itself might be partially assisting with the alignment. :o
@Lumen
Do you plan to also test the "floor" configuration ?
Would you like me to do a graph set of your last measurments?
....................
@all readers
Please find the attached pdf file "both pdf".
The motions depicted in this pdf animation are not necessarily
identical to the motions that would actually occur under the conditions
animated. The lateral displacements of the SLs would tend to occur during most of
the RO rotation, and not only when RO is at maximum repulsion and attraction positions.
floor
The design illustrated in the "both.pdf" is given into the public domain.
It is a method of torque conversion and also a basis for a magnet motor.
floor
Quote from: Floor on September 25, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
@Lumen
Do you plan to also test the "floor" configuration ?
Would you like me to do a graph set of your last measurments?
....................
floor
@floor
At this time I am trying to come up with a good design for a test rig where I could hold many different size magnets and perform rotational and distance moves to collect force data on all the points in between.
I believe I understand now why and how the action provides extra energy but additional data may lead to the optimum configuration.
If I build a universal testing device it would be possible to collect data on many different interactions including yours.
As far as graphing the last data set? I probably wouldn't spend additional time on it thinking additional data is more important at this point but thanks anyway.
We'll see what happens in the next test.
Why do I feel "Steorn" has already done all this and knows the result. Didn't they have a machine to do this exact same thing?
Righty o
floor
@ all readers
I have received a communication from an old user here "lost causes 10X"
Although I do not entirely agree with his conclusion, I am publishing that
communication here because, I find his observations / insights to be valuable.
One of the ideas he has presented, is that SL magnet motion is actually twice
the RO magnet motion, and hence the apparent, but not actual OU.
I on the other hand, think that under ideal conditions the work done on SL by the weights
would be exactly twice the work done by RO on its weights. It is this (ideal 2 : 1) part of his
idea that I find agreement with.
Please find his, the attached PNG file "lost causes 10 X"
best wishes
floor
File below
That is one hard to comprehend line of thinking.
The angle is not improtant in the results when the data invloves only force over distance.
I had configured my test to avoid any additional conversion of forces by keeping all measurements linear over the same distance. The angle need not even be known.
This allows for easy comparison of work done or required along every movement.
Looking for fault in the angles used is simply looking for a reason to claim failure.
IMO
@lumen
I'm interested in what GOOD critics have to say, because their critical examinations often bring
about new points of view. I don't have to agree with their conclusions.
LostCauses10X likes to rock the boat.. . Sometimes boats need a good shaking.
I don't mind it, so long as it doesn't sink the boat, or knock somebody over board.
Please find the attached file circular.PDF
best wishes
floor
Quote from: Floor on September 27, 2016, 12:58:42 PM
@lumen
I'm interested in what GOOD critics have to say, because their critical examinations often bring
about new points of view. I don't have to agree with their conclusions.
LostCauses10X likes to rock the boat.. . Sometimes boats need a good shaking.
I don't mind it, so long as it doesn't sink the boat, or knock somebody over board.
Please find the attached file circular.PDF
best wishes
floor
I think that your circular configuration would be easier to build, and easier to analyze.
The "stator" magnet must do 4 revolutions for each revolution of the rotor. If you just can find a way to calculate or simulate the energy required to rotate the stator 4 times and simulate the energy provided by the rotor for one revolution. Maxwell 3D can maybe do this?
I imagine that the stator will constantly counterforce as there is no place to "rest", and it is rotating 4 times faster than the rotor. So I am wondering if it is possible to determine in which direction the rotor will go if we look at how much displacement there is involved vs. torque...
Vidar
@Low-Q
Quote from Low-Q "I think that your circular configuration would be easier to build, and easier to analyze." END QUOTE
I disagree on both counts
"Believers " are not particularly useful in science.
It seems to me that seeing some actual evidence that it can work, should precede one's building "IT".
The circular "IT" device is vaguely describe in my PDF file, and exactly timing the two rotations would not be
"easy".
Easy to make a mess of seem most likely.?
floor
Quote from: Low-Q on September 28, 2016, 12:10:10 PM
I think that your circular configuration would be easier to build, and easier to analyze.
The "stator" magnet must do 4 revolutions for each revolution of the rotor. If you just can find a way to calculate or simulate the energy required to rotate the stator 4 times and simulate the energy provided by the rotor for one revolution. Maxwell 3D can maybe do this?
I imagine that the stator will constantly counterforce as there is no place to "rest", and it is rotating 4 times faster than the rotor. So I am wondering if it is possible to determine in which direction the rotor will go if we look at how much displacement there is involved vs. torque...
Vidar
Floor's design might work or might work even better if the rotor was a smaller diameter to increase leverage.
I feel that if in fact some gain can be achieved in magnetic interaction, then the reason for it needs to be determined in order to build a useful machine.
At this time, it seems to me that the part of the interaction that is detrimental is the attraction part. So far it appears that gain only comes from a neutral position to a repelling position and that once in full attraction one can never achieve a gain from that position.
To do software testing on a design even as simple as floor's rotary design involves many magnets and many steps which would take days to calculate even with a script making the moves.
It's usually easier and faster to build a device to test it but the reason why the device should work needs to be known first.
But you never know, it could just work! ???
I'll clarify my position.
I have as of this point in time, built 3 different measuring devices, in order to test if indeed there is a difference in
the work required to separate two magnets in attraction by rotation
.....and
the work to separate those magnets by directly pulling them apart.
The question I at first had in mind was ... did it only appear to be easier to twist them apart, due to the mechanics of human hands, wrists and so on ? or was there actually a difference.
The first of my three devices could only measure the peak forces of each of these two scenarios.
The difference in those peak values was > 19% . Hence the name of this topic.
The second device was a modification of the first device which allowed measurements of the varied force (as weight applied) at increments of distance.
After a series of blunders due to my lack of understanding of
the process of integrating a changing force over distance,
and
also incorrect interpretation of graphs of those forces.
I hit the books. Things are very different at this time, my knowledge base has expanded very considerably.
..............................
Additionally, I now have an accurate device (device number 3) for making those measurements.
The SL work is more than 173% greater than RO not merely 19% ... I have no doubt of this, as I have measured and pondered this many times now. I also understand that this is basically unbelievable.
As to, is this is possible or not and how could it possibly work,
I CARE NOT EVEN ONE TINY BIT at his point in time.
As to whether others should believe my claims ? No... I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD. I DO think they should see for their selves. If my presentations have been inadequate toward the goal of inspiring others to that end, I do apologize.
If the reader realizes that his skills and or resources are inadequate to the task, that's ok..
But If you cannot do muster excellence, in either confirmation or refutation of my findings, is would be far far better just to stay out of the way. I do a good enough job of cluttering up the topic with out any ones help.
best wishes
floor
QuoteThe question I at first had in mind was ... did it only appear to be easier to twist them apart, due to the mechanics of human hands, wrists and so on ? or was there actually a difference.[/size]
This is exactly why we cannot trust our hand. The twist require less force, but on the other hand it also require more displacement to achieve a full separation.
Peak values are not interesting. It is the average values vs. displacement that is interesting to analyze.
Since the forces change during the operation, it is needed to be taken as many samples as possible.
I can agree with you in your previous post that actually building this device is much easier. If it works, it should work. If not, we need no more testing or tweaking.
Magnets are conservative, and should by their nature not be able to perform work. There is "always" a catch in magnet motor designs that the inventor didn't think of at first.
If theory and practice doesn't add up, we must throw away the theory - just like the theory of global warming that doesn't add upp with actual reason for global warming (except that the global warming theory cost too much prestige, money and column inches to throw away).
Vidar
test,just wanted a link back to this thread.triffid
@floor
I was wondering if your increase in gain was related to notching the magnet in your last setup?
Hi Lumen
Here is some relevant info.
First, working with RO at 32 deg. off from parallel cuts done the
distance traveled by SL, before SL is beyond significant influence from RO.
This was done because MY TD unit has limited SL range of travel.
In order to arrive at a distance where in... SL is "free" from RO, but also
RO is "free" from SL I needed to keep RO to no more than Around 30
degrees from parallel.
In other words... in order to find the distance at which at which RO can be
FREELY rotated to parallel, would have been a greater distance than
then the length of the sliding rails used in my version of a TD unit.
All this gives us information about the interactions, but again is a kind of back
wards approaching of the interactions. Still, it gives us perspectives we might
not immediately have noticed other wise.
Notching the SL matters.... IF one is looking at / running the TD unit Back wards !
notching the SL matters..... but is not necessary at all, if one is operating the TD
with RO as input and SL as out put.
Good questions
floor
CORRECTION
QUOTE "In other words... in order to find the distance at which at which RO can be
FREELY rotated to parallel, " END QUOTE
RATHER
in other words.... in order to find the distance of SL from RO...
at which RO can be FREELY rotated to parallel is not possible on my unit.
Up to around 30 degrees is the the most parallel one can go before RO resistance to
rotation becomes significant. SL simple will not travel far enough (on my TD unit).
I think I have found a compatable theory for the energy source.
Phlogiston !
smile
floor
I just finished doing some calculations on new results from my latest test rig so here are some results without all the detail but the idea.
Using magnets that are 1/8 x 1.00 x 2.00 there was a gain of 13.5%
Though this sounds like a good amount of extra work but it is actually a force of .155 grams (5.47 oz) over a distance of 20.32 mm (.800 inch)
The maximum force on the structure at the worst point is about 3.63 Kg between the magnets.
So any device that could run on those magnets would have to operate with a few ounces of force but also be strong enough to withstand forces over 8 lbs.
Just a thought on the expectations of friction and design.
This new setup is a bit more universal so I'm thinking to move on to floor's arrangement and see what happens there. 8)
Thanks for the update Lumen.
regards
floor
I may try a design something like this because it could handle high forces and yet operate with very little friction.
@floor
I could always change the magnet orientations to your layout if testing proves it to be more efficient!
@Low-Q
QUOTE from Low-Q "If theory and practice doesn't add up, we must throw away the theory - "END QUOTE
You bring up good points.
I am NOT proceeding from the theoretical to the empirical.. This whole endeavor has been
based only upon observations and measurements.
I have only some vague ideas / observations as to why there is difference in the work RO to work SL.
1. It would seem to violate conservation, but once it is understood, probably doesn't ?
2. Any two magnets interacting in either predominantly attraction or repulsion, actually are
influenced by both, some attraction and some repulsion. In the TD magnet configuration.
the ratios of attraction and repulsion are different under the conditions of rotation as
compared to a direct approaching ?
3. The configuration / interactions ,gives rise to some form of magnetic shielding ?
However, I am NOT proceeding from the theoretical to the empirical.. This whole endeavor has been
based only upon observations and measurements.
Those measurements are of some of the most basic and simple physical properties.
My measurements and processes are either correct (within an acceptable margin)
or
they are in error.
The conclusion are self evident.
@Lumen
No worries, but,I don't understand the force inbteractions and or motions in your drawings.
floor
Here are some pictures of my rotary and slide force measuring devices.
The replaceable ends help to make it a bit more universal in testing different magnet shapes.
I use the same digital scale on both devices to avoid any scale error.
@Lumen
See the questions on the Picture Below.
I was looking at my RO unit in terms of how much effort for me to
mount a ceramic magnet in "Lumen's" face to face alignment.
I would have to replace the RO magnet - mount with something more
universal as well.
floor
@floor
You are correct,that is exactly how it is setup.
I am making some small changes because the next magnets I'll be testing are 1/4 x 1/2 x 2.00 and are very strong.
I will test them face to face and with parallel poles to see what difference might exist.
There is one last pair that I would like to test but these are 1/2 x 1 x 2 and are super strong and I need to make sure they don't get loose!
The aluminum foil tape is ok for thin magnets with 20Lbs pull but 60Lbs or better......Humm
It would be interesting to see if output remains proportional over all the sets.
@Lumen
more data, more good
floor
Collecting data can be helpful but I'm wondering about the math.
Because magnets are not a linear force is it reasonable to assume that using a linear calculation like averaging is in fact accurate.
It just seems that finding results of 12% and then 13.5% for a calculation that should in fact be equal ( 0% OU), appears it could be an error in the math process.
Is there anyone good at math that can verify the data indicates an actual gain?
CORRECTIONS
In reference to my last published measurement sets...
I have stated that RO is 173 % greater than SL ... a transposition error, a miswording and WRONG.
I have stated that SL is 173 % greater than RO... a miss-wording error and WRONG.
Neither was correct.
rather
SL was 173 % of RO
and
SL was 73 % greater than RO
floor
@ Lumen
QUOTE FROM Lumen
"appears it could be an error in the math process. Is there anyone good at math that
can verify the data indicates an actual gain?" END QUOTE
I proceeded by measuring mm of fall and grams of weight. with no conversions
to joules. The RATIOS of the (products of RO) to the (products of SL) will be the same
as the ratios of a conversion to (joules RO) to (joules SL).
Example 1... A x B is to C x D has the same ratio as (A x B) x F is to (C x D) x F.
In my last presented measurement sets. I dived the products of
force and displacement (work RO) by 2... but also I dived the products
of force and displacement (work SL) by 2. Doesn't change a thing
in terms of the ratio of work in to work out, but is does misstate both
the work in and the work out by 1/2.
..............................
Work = force times displacement
specifically
Joules of work = newtons of force times meters of displacement.
..............................
Your motions that are rotational, can be translated into
their linear equivalents. Lots of math, but simple math.
.......................
Each of your (little measurements) of force times displacement is a
complete statement of work done.
The totals for all of the little RO works done is simply the total
work done on RO.
The totals for all of the little linear SL works done is simply the total
work done on SL.
Averaging isn't the way I proceeded, but do it your own way.
............................
I really don't mind and even appreciate it if others correct my errors. I very much so
oppose it when this become a put down game.
I think we need to check each others work / math / methods and so on,
and to simply discuss it No big deal..
regards
Floor
@ Lumen
some observations
In your photo of your RO setup..
It looks like you have to re-position the force gauge after
every degree or two of rotation ? this could account for
an apparent OU result ?
A rack and pinon gear would translate the rotational
to a linear motion with a consistant margin of error ?
or a nodding donky set up and a PULLING force measurement
could be used... but then chain / or string, stretch could become
problematic ?
regards
floor
Quote from: Floor on October 03, 2016, 12:02:37 PM
@ Lumen
some observations
In your photo of your RO setup..
It looks like you have to re-position the force gauge after
every degree or two of rotation ? this could account for
an apparent OU result ?
A rack and pinon gear would translate the rotational
to a linear motion with a consistant margin of error ?
or a nodding donky set up and a PULLING force measurement
could be used... but then chain / or string, stretch could become
problematic ?
regards
floor
The rotary table rotates everything as a single unit.
There are bearings inside which the magnet mounts to, but they don't turn because the scale holds it stationary measuring only the force applied.
The entire setup is then rotated against the stationary SL magnet using whatever steps desired.
So the scale never needs to be moved because it rotates with the setup on the rotary table measuring the forces applied from a stationary external magnet (SL).
This way the scale always remains at 90 degrees to the force arm so the reading is not affected by a changing angle on the arm.
As far as the math?
I understand the force distance formula for work but what the problem amounts to exactly is what force?
In my case the distance is always the same so that part is easy. The force is at points and the change between any two points is not linear.
So thinking that the force to use is the average of two points over that distance could only be close but not exact, and if not exact, what could the error be?
The method I use is (average of 17 points) * 16 spaces = total force over .800 inch travel which is the same over all tests.
Just looking for an explanation for the energy gain that should not exist.
Another thought is that these tests are only a comparison of the work done in making moves between two magnets that should amount to zero but do not and that even with a small percent of error in the math, the same error would exist on all measurements and would have no real effect on the result.
If I ran the same tests using two round magnet and used the same method to find excess energy then the result would in fact show zero gain.
So it is then the magnet shape that impacts the result.
@ lumen
I'm commited else where for the next 4 days.
I think we are still on the same page.
We need to be certain of the validity of our processes and methods,
both meachanically and mathematically, or else change them.
I'm certain that in either case we can do so.
later
floor
@floor
No problem, I have a few things to do also before setting up this next test.
Quote from: lumen on October 02, 2016, 04:26:53 PM
Collecting data can be helpful but I'm wondering about the math.
Because magnets are not a linear force is it reasonable to assume that using a linear calculation like averaging is in fact accurate.
It just seems that finding results of 12% and then 13.5% for a calculation that should in fact be equal ( 0% OU), appears it could be an error in the math process.
Is there anyone good at math that can verify the data indicates an actual gain?
Math never makes mistakes. It is the person who do them who fails. That is the platform we humans must build our experiences on.
If you want reliable measurements, you must take a high number of samples. Especially when the magnets are very close to eachother. A 1mm resolution sample when the magnets are 10mm apart is 100 times more accurate than the sample made 1mm apart. So you have to scale down the sample rate the closer the magnets are to each other. Maybe 0.1mm resolution when they are close, and 1mm resolution further apart.
It is easy to miss out major force or torque readings when you have a coarse sample rate.
If the math proves over unity, it is the samples that are wrong. Calculating an accurate result is very time consuming, but not actually rocket science. I would say closer to primary school math. The trick is to not miss out samples that have a major effect on the result.
Vidar
@ Vidar
In the next two tests I have planned, I will take many more data points to remove any question of high angle transitions that could have been missed.
A graph of the last test data (not yet posted) does not show any indication of rapid transitions that could have amounted to 13.5% so I am reasonably convinced that there is something going on that could be useful in the design of a real operating machine.
Once I find the point of maximum attainable gain I plan to proceed to build a machine that can function within those parameters.
I still need to test floor's configuration because he states an even higher gain than what I have seen.
@ lumen
Looking forward to see the results. I hope you pull this one off :)
These are the results of the second test that I wasn't going to post but just in case someone is interested.
The magnets used were 1/8 x 1 x 2.
In the test the magnets are pushed together against the large faces but rotated 90 degrees to each other.
At zero distance the gap was .1 between the magnets and then they are rotated to be parallel and in full repulsion.
They are then moved apart at the exit stroke which seems to provide 13.5% more work than the other two mavements.
The step size is .05 inch and is the same in all the steps even the rotation which is shown as degrees at a force radius of .5093 and 5.625 degree steps is making a movement of .05 inch.
All of the next tests will have a reduced step of .01 inch to provide assurance of it's accuracy.
@ lumen
Nice presentation.
The only changes in force that could be easily missed, are those
occurring at very close range, (domain flipping).
Other wise, the curves are pretty predictable.
I think one could skew the ratio of RO to SL by differing the
number of samples taken on one side or the other.
How dramatically the law of diminishing returns is affecting the two sets (RO and SL)
is the only question I have at this point.
floor
@ floor
Thanks, good to see you made it back.
I thought plotting the curves might show some problem area but it looks like nothing could explain 13.5% error.
Once I modify this setup to take some stronger forces I'm thinking of running this same test over using smaller steps and recalculate the results.
If it ends up about the same results, I suppose that would indicate we are on the right track anyway.
I first need to finish another project so it might be another week before I can do the tests.
Interesting stuff!
Acknowledged
floor
Why does the twist drive work ?
Why is there such a great difference between the
inducing and induced fields in an electromagnet ?
It takes less force and or energy to rotate atoms / molecules into a magnetic domain
alignment, than the net linear force which those atoms can manifest collectively
as magnetic domains.
The twist drive works for the same reason ?
floor
You might have experienced what we call flux modulation - that has played you a trick.
Flux modulation might be a problem in speakers. The magnetized iron pole piece is modulated by the voicecoil (Which is an electromagnet), and cause modulation of the magnetic airgap where the voicecoil is located. This will cause a different BL product on positive versus negative excursion of the coil.
@Low-Q
QUOTE FROM Low-Q
"You might have experienced what we call flux modulation - that has played you a trick.
Flux modulation might be a problem in speakers. The magnetized iron pole piece is modulated by the voicecoil (Which is an electromagnet), and cause modulation of the magnetic airgap where the voicecoil is located. This will cause a different BL product on positive versus negative excursion of the coil."
END QUOTE
I was not referring to either, an alternating or pulsating DC current.
Iwas NOT referring to a solenoid WITH A MOVING CORE.
I am referring to the fact that a DC energized coil WITH AN IRON CORE (an electromagnet)
can produce a MANY TIMES GREATER magnetic force than...
that same DC energized coil in the absents of an iron core. This even when the same amperage
is flowing through the coil in both cases.
floor
OK. Iron will narrow the magnetic flux into its core on the expense of less magnetic flux outside it, but the total magnetism, if you could "count" the magnetic lines, will be the same number as in an electromagnet with an air core.
The flux must loop from north to south. When you use an iron core, the fluxlines are taking sharper corners than using air core. Therfor the magnetic force is greater with an iron core, but on the expense on how far that force can reach - normally in a very narrow space.
It is where the fluxlines takes its sharpest corners where the force is greatest - closest to the physical corners/circumference of the iron core at the south or north pole.
What has this to do with the twist drive? Does it make any difference in practice wether you use iron core or not? No criticism, just asking.
Vidar
I have to say this new laundry room is taking longer than I wanted.
12' x 18' , drywall, plumbing, flooring, ceiling, electrical.... what else?
I need to get back and collect more data before I'm dead!
Hope to be back soon.
@Low-Q
QUOTE FROM Low-Q
"OK. Iron will narrow the magnetic flux into its core on the expense of less magnetic flux outside it, but the total magnetism, if you could "count" the magnetic lines, will be the same number as in an electromagnet with an air core.
The flux must loop from north to south. When you use an iron core, the fluxlines are taking sharper corners than using air core. Therfor the magnetic force is greater with an iron core, but on the expense on how far that force can reach - normally in a very narrow space.
It is where the fluxlines takes its sharpest corners where the force is greatest - closest to the physical corners/circumference of the iron core at the south or north pole.
What has this to do with the twist drive? Does it make any difference in practice wether you use iron core or not? No criticism, just asking."
END QUOTE
Firstly... I am not an expert in magnets. I once thought, that an Iron core only concentrated a coils magnetic field, but did not
actually increase it.
I keep learning more all the time.
Quote from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/elemag.html
"Electromagnets are usually in the form of iron core solenoids. The ferromagnetic property of the iron core causes the internal magnetic domains of the iron to line up with THE SMALLER DRIVING MAGNETIC FIELD produced by the current in the solenoid. The effect is the multiplication of the magnetic field by factors of tens to even thousands." END QUOTE
best wishes
floor
@Lumen
Don't rush it.
Just get into it, and geter done.
floor
@ all readers.
Here is a configuration, in which RO is the output and
SL is the input.
The work in to work out ratio can become
extreamly large.
This is because the work to place the RO (rotating) magnet
between the two SL (slideing) magnets ocuurs mainly, just as
the ends of magnets SL begin to pass the end of
magnet RO.
The length (latteral) of the magnets can be increased, by
useing multiple magnets, placed end to end.
Increasing the length of the magnets DOES NOT increase
the input work, but it DOES Increase the output work.
please find the attached PDF
best wishes
floor
QuoteI once thought, that an Iron core only concentrated a coils magnetic field, but did not
actually increase it.
And you were right. It does not increase, but concentrate the field to a narrow space. Increasing flux density into a narrower space like using a lens to focus sunlight so you can burn ants.
The energy in the light does not increase, but is narrowed to a smaller point so the energy density increase.
The total sunlight energy, or magnetic flux, appears to increase, but it doesn't. Only the density changes on the expence of a smaller space.
Remember that the only magnetic field lines that is available, is only those that is around the wire in the coil.
Vidar
@Low-Q
QUOTE FROM Low-Q
"And you were right. It does not increase, but concentrate the field to a narrow space. Increasing flux density into a narrower space like using a lens to focus sunlight so you can burn ants."
END QUOTE
Invalid anology.
QUOTE FROM Low-Q
"The energy in the light does not increase, but is narrowed to a smaller point so the energy density increase."
END QUOTE
Correct
The total sunlight energy, or magnetic flux, appears to increase, but it doesn't. Only the density changes on the expence of a smaller space. "
END QUOTE
Invalid anology.
QUOTE FROM Low-Q
"Remember that the only magnetic field lines that is available, is only those that is around the wire in the coil."
END QUOTE
Wrong
Quote from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/elemag.html
"Electromagnets are usually in the form of iron core solenoids. The ferromagnetic property of the iron core causes the internal magnetic domains of the iron to line up with THE SMALLER DRIVING MAGNETIC FIELD produced by the current in the solenoid. The effect is the multiplication of the magnetic field by factors of tens to even thousands."
END QUOTE
Floor
Quotethe iron core causes the internal magnetic domains of the iron to line up with THE SMALLER DRIVING MAGNETIC FIELD produced by the current in the solenoid[/size]
What do you think this means?
Vidar
@ Low-Q
OK I'll bite, What do you think it means ?
floor
Ok:
The magnetism from the coil will align the magnetic polarity of the atoms in the iron in the same direction. This will increase the magnetic flux density through the core. This magnetic flux that exits the iron core is still attracting the iron, so the flux density is very much focused in the close vicinity of the iron, and want to take the shortest path back in to the south pole of the iron core.
This will cause the flux density to be very strong at the poles, tens, maybe hundereds times stronger. However, this increased magnetic flux density have its price. The flux doesn't reach as far any more, because they are to busy with the iron core.
The two iron plates is the reason why closet door magnets are so strong, but doesn't shut the closet door when it is too open. The magnetic flux is virtually jumping directly to the other iron plate on the other side of the magnet, making the closet door magnet weak on distance but very strong when the door is closed, and keep it there until a strong force opens the door, but the door does not even have to move a millimeter before you can open the door with ease.
The conclusion is that the flux density increase with the iron core, but the total available magnetism does not increase. Just focused. You can test this by using two air core coils, and power them up, and then face equal poles close to eachother. The magnetic field is escaping the gap between the coils as a very dense magnetic flux without an iron core, but the total available magnetism hasn't changed a bit.
Vidar
@Low-Q
The goal of this topic is the presentation of replications of the measurement process / experiment.
I do not agree with your interpretations of the information at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/elemag.html .
Also I do not find your choice of wording to be concise enough to allow for a meaningful response
on my part.
except that
I do not agree with your conclusions.
Quote from: Floor on October 30, 2016, 03:45:13 AM
@Low-Q
The goal of this topic is the presentation of replications of the measurement process / experiment.
I do not agree with your interpretations of the information at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/elemag.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/elemag.html) .
Also I do not find your choice of wording to be concise enough to allow for a meaningful response
on my part.
except that
I do not agree with your conclusions.
The link you posted doesn't work.
Vidar
@Low-q
That link Is working now. (it's the same old link)
I think you have brought up, good questions. The ultimate answers to
which, I may have no answers ?
I apologize that I am distracted these recent days. An old friend is soon to pass on.
He and the family, need a little support at this time.
.........................................
1. Assume I place a magnetic compass at a distance from an electrically energized coil, which is producing
a magnetic force.
At some distance (millimeters m) the compass needle deflects some amount (degrees d).
2. Assume I add an appropriate (magnetically soft and normally un-magnetized) iron core to center of
this energized coil.
At the distance (millimeters m) the compass will now deflect > (degrees d).
or
the compass needle will now deflect (deflection d), but while compass needle is at
> (millimeters m)
I hope this some kind of a useful answer.
best wishes
floor
PS
I wold like to start a new topic, which if specifically for these info s, ideas, and theories,
while leaving this topic to be specifically for actual measurements, and examinations of the methods and devices
of those measurements ?
@Floor
Sorry to hear about your old friend. It's hard to keep a clear mind in hard times. My best whishes for you, your friend and his family.
---
Sounds like a good idea you have about the compass. I will do this experiment too. I think I will add a spring to the compass (Just made by a couple of neos), so it is possible to get an indication of the forces from some distance - with and without the iron core.
I will assume the compass will just smash into the iron core at close up measurements. If you don't mind I can post my findings in your new thread.
Vidar
The new topic is called
Magnets, motion and measurement
floor
Please find the attached file "pasThru 2"
The design and method is given into the public domain.
It requires less work to position the rotating magnet between the
other magnets, than the work which can be done by the rotation.
floor
Floor
Much respect and appreciation for your hard work [years] and selfless open source example, you inspire the replication/replicators
you mention a measurement thread above, can you post a Link ?
respectfully
Chet K
@Ramset
TD replications
Is for presentations of "TD" replications.
Magnets, motion and measurement
is for theory and practices and so on.
Thanks. Lets see if it all pans out.
floor
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/
floor
The TD (twist drive) is not a motor per say, in that it does not
produce a continuous rotation in the rotating magnet / magnets.
Neither does it give rise to an infinite linear motion.
However the TD machines are not simply / or only measuring devices.
They are useful machines, with useful mechanical out put, which can
is work done as either a liner motion or as work done as rotation.
The TD machine variations are functioning converters of either,
linear motion to rotational motion or rotational motion to linear motion.
They are based upon 90 degree, near 90 degree, and reciprocating interactions
which by there very nature, arrest momentum.
These momentum arresting interactions are (I believe) integral to its O.U functioning.
My measurements show that, depending upon various magnet alignments, shapes
and motion interactions, the TD can give more mechanical work out than is put in to it,
even when the work done to reset the movements to their starting positions is accounted for.
All of these designs, methods and devicements for the TD machines are given into the public domain.
please find the attached PDF file which contains my most recent explanations and machine description.
floor
Some interaction descriptions.
floor
Nice drawings Floor but this factor always got me stuck.
1. closer stronger and
2. further weaker.
3. two sides that have forces to be accounted for....
In my work I have found those three factors make things very difficult.
The Echlin thing is an example of that.
Keep trying with this in mind though.
Norman
@Norman6538
Yep
It can get pretty confusing with all of the changes... changing force of rotation with each degree,
changing force of sliding with each mm, changing direction of sliding, changing direction of rotation.
None of the forces are constant (they are increasing or decreasing) throughout the motions .
During the measuring process, there are 4 distinct inputs of work. The largest
input (in reverse) generally being considered as the "output"
My goal, originally, was to have the RO..tation as out put and the SL..ider
as input,
The latest variation of the unit is to finally.... give this result.
Some energy could be stored as rotation, by use of a ratcheting
fly wheel as Webby suggests.
But energy spent on acceleration is already usable / used / can be used as
expenditure of momentum, in some of the TD motions.even though there are
reversing motions.
regards
floor
@ Lumen @ Luc
Do either of you feel ready to make some kind of interim summation
of your TD investigations ?
@all readers
Still looking for the error / s. 12/16/2016
..........................................................................
below are
What to me, may be, unanswered feed back / critical input to date.
and which was based upon examinations of
a. the measuring devices used
b. measurement procedures followed
c. mathematical processes
and which also, are not already addressed and / or possibly incompletely
addressed.
from
1. ConradElectro - measurements simply show the difference
in friction between RO and SL actions ?
2. Floor - Miss application of the force integration process in general ?
3. Floor- Unequal effect / application of the law of diminishing returns upon
RO as compared to SL ?
4. Lumen - back side influence ?
5. DrJones - incomplete conversion of the actions into joules ?
6. GoToLuc - math error ?
7. Webby - ?
...................................................................
Floor is continuing testing, Lumen intends to do further testing,
GoToLuc's testing is also, as yet incomplete.
...................................................................
@Lumen I would like to see a topic dedicated to your TD replication.
as "Lumen's TD replication" or the like, and maybe copy your data,
graphs, photos etc. to that new topic ?
regards
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 16, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
@ Lumen @ Luc
Do either of you feel ready to make some kind of interim summation
of your TD investigations ?
regards
floor
Hi floor
I'm still experimenting with different magnet geometry before I start building the 2nd test device.
As a quick interim summation I would say that the TD effect is very interesting to say the least. Definitely worthy to build and study compared to anything else on this site.
My tests always seems to score a greater output torque compared to input torque. My results were shared in the TD Replication topic.
Hopefully I'll have the second test device built in a week or so. This one will take more time to build then the first test device as it will rotate and hopefully have enough output torque gain to loop back to operate the input.
Hope this helps to summarize where I'm at to this point
Kind regards
Luc
@luc
Looking forward to it.
floor
More on the closer stronger - further weaker problem.
If you have a magnet that will lift a 1 lb weight 1/8 inch I call that
1 unit of work. But if you move that 1 lb to 1/4 inch it likely will not
lift the 1 lb weight but it might lift a 1/2 lb weight and that I call
a half unit of work and the way I get that extra half unit of work is to
use a variable lever that has greater leverage to lift that 1/2 lb weight
before it lifts the 1 lb weight. And that is done by making the weakness
of the magnet at the greater distance to be stronger with more leverage
at that spot.
Picture the variable lever to be a small lever with a fulcrum halfway from the center.
when the lever is tilted 45 degrees the leverage is closer to 1:1 because the
true leverage (variable lever) is the distance to the center measured by a plumb line but when it is horizontal the short end is at a leverage disadvantage.
That small extra advantage can push you into OU.
Norman
Hi Norman,
I'm trying to understand where your post fits to what has been demonstrated. Care to be a little more specific as to who's test device you're referring to and then where you see what you've described fits.
Regards
Luc
@norman6538
What Gotoluc is speaking to, is that we are trying to keep THIS topic and the "TD replications"
topic specifically for examination of the "TD unit".
Postings of other kinds of comments, which address magnets,
physics and measurement process and for more general magnet discussions
can be made @
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/
I love to have more discussions with you upon these other, and more
general topics, please re post your comment there.
Sorry, I've let this topic slip away from it's specific intended purpose.
Gotoluc is doing a "TD" based presentation @
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/
I have asked Lumen "the other replication presenter" if he would make a new topic specific to
his replication (for the clarity and ease of his presentation) but he is still busy else where
at this time.
regards
floor
Please find the 2 attached files "PassThrough 3-1.png"
floor
WOW for sure floor!
you've just shared the magnet geometry I've been testing for the past 2 days which I was going to use in my 2nd test device since it is very effective in torque transfer.
So you came to the same conclusion without us even talking or sharing about it. Kind of ruined my surprise but that's okay ;)
Your introduction of a cylinder between the magnets is very interesting to say the least!... I had not thought about that.
Would a plain Iron cylinder work between the inner and outer magnet or are you suggesting it be a magnet as well?
You're really raising the bar now and giving much food for thought.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
@Gotoluc
A few confessions to make...
My goals
Trying to keep this patent free.. so some times I'm making quick
moves in posting... with the goal of beating any (some ones) who might
make a quick patent filing of the next step in the process...
and which they (silently perhaps, are seeing as well as we are).
I just think that MAYBE this is too important to be held by just
one person ? (includes me).
........
Some times stating the basics, the obvious and so on.. and this may appear as if I am
talking down to others. or "boasting my Knowledge".......but most people reading
our posts, have not and will not ever comment. Very many are as much a beginner
as am I. I would like the subject to remain as "available to all",
what ever "level" they are on.
I might tend to worry over this project overly much, while trying to remain objective
at the same time, (sorry).
I am learning a lot from the company I have been keeping here and appreciate this.
......................................................
Honestly I believe this adventure has been a product of a unity, or a kind of over unit.
While the feeling that this is my discovery has some appeal to me, I cant honestly
consider the discovery as being my own. Seems more like that, there is a beehive mind
available when we are in tune. But this hasn't diminished the joy of discovery.
........................
NEXT
Hadn't thought about just Iron for a cylinder. ....may be?
Three layers of just 2 magnets each, instead of cylinders,
would work out, I think ?
God rest ye merry gentlemen.
Joy of the season to us all.
floor
Non cylindrical magnets.
Cylinder magnets like those in the "PasThru 3-1" and "PasThru 3-2" drawings
might be a little bit hard to come by
please find the attached file "PassThru 3-3. PNG"
floor
Hard to catch all the errors some times.
apologies
floor
Maybe some people missed this pdf file.
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg496816/#msg496816
« Reply #175 on: December 04, 2016, 06:26:01 AM »
"4 pole 45 deg .PDF"
Merry XMas
Please find the 2 attached PNG files
floor
Personal Message
from Lumen to floor
Re: (No subject)
Sent to: Floor on: Today at 06:19:07 AM »
(in part)
"Hi floor,
At this time I remain somewhat skeptical even though the testing I have done appears to indicate some energy gain in the results.
I have been delayed from further testing by other tasks......"
thanks Lumen
floor
Please find the attached file below "TheMatrixHasYourNeos" PDF
Cheers
SIMPLIFIED
Please find the attached file "PassThru 5. PDF"
PLease find below, a fix for the "PassThru 5" PDF.
floor
Floor could you describe your pass thru setup step by step? In the past I have many times gotten past the sticky spot but then when you take power off of a balanced system you are then stuck with not being able to reset and repeat the cycle. Permanent magnet power source would be easy if it were not for the reset/repeat sticky spot.
Norman
Hi nornam
If you look closely at / study the 4 pole 45 degree TD PDF file
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/dlattach/attach/161475/
It becomes apparent why a magnet or magnets can be free from a net attracting force
(free from being stuck) when both an attracting force and a repelling force are acting with
equal effect.
This neutrality of attraction, is actually a neutrality of both attraction and repulsion, because
these two forces are in balance.
In the "4 pole 45 degree TD" file, this is ... ONLY ... in terms of a specific line.
(the straight line of pull of the inner magnets from within the outer magnets).
By creating situations where in, there is a balance between the attracting and repelling forces,
one creates what is /are in effect, a kind of magnetic shielding. These effects are direction specific.
..................................................
It is also possible to make a magnet FREE TO ROTATE (PassThru5.PNG file) even while it is under influence from another or several other magnets, (by creating a balance in the attracting and repelling forces).
In this situation, the magnitude of both the attracting forces and the repelling forces shift throughout
the rotation, but yet there can remain a balance between these mutually shifting magnitudes.
......................................................
floor
@Norman6538
Here is a file with some details.
Please find the attached "PassThru 5 Detailed" PDF.
Thanks for the inquiries
regards
floor
Thanks Floor, that helps a little but I don't see sliding that magnet set away or back
in accomplishes anything other than pushing a matchbox car on a level table.
Enlighten me please.
Norman
Ok Norman
Let me see if my Buddha scepter of enlightenment is working this morning.
When the mid magnets have been removed from between the outer and inner magnets
(this can be done, with out doing work against magnetic forces)
the inner magnet is compelled by magnetic forces to rotate
(to do work (output) as rotation by 180 degrees).
After this 180 degree rotation, the mid magnets can be returned to their first position of,
inbetween the inner and outer magnets.
(as before, this can be done, with out doing work against magnetic forces)
With the mid magnets returned to their position of between the outer magnets and the inner magnet,
the inner magnet is free from magnetic forces which would compel it to rotate.
(The inner magnet can now be manually rotated 180 degrees with out doing work against
magnetic forces, thus magically, is it returned to its starting position). (Smile)
thanks for the inquiry
best wishes
floor
Floor, that helps a lot but it would be best to label each one and then add that label
to the text to make it very clear. And then say if the rotation comes from attraction
or repel force rather than a generic "magnetic forces". Its my understanding that
only 2 kinds of work can come from permanent magnets
1. attraction but then you have the sticky spot
2. repel but in order to have a repel force you first have to input
work ie. squeeze (unless you have a trick to achieve that) - which turns out to be the opposite of the sticky spot.
And you did clarify the reset back to the beginning for another repeat cycle.
Thanks again.
Norman
I'm not trying to be a party killer here, but feel that I need to input some realism ;)
Norman, you are right about your observations of magnets. These observations are the same for everyone, and magnets does not change how they work depending of how a person wants them to work. Magnets are magnets, and they give a damn about the engineer who have a vision of perpetual motion or excess energy from permanent magnets. No discredit to Floor - because curiosity and engineering moves the world forward, but also creates proves of failures so we don't repeat them over and over again.
However, to avoid the sticky spot, you also take away the pulling force that pulls the magnets together - to do work. The sticky spot must be there until it's not needed, and that's what happening in an electric motor. Except the electric motor change the polarity on one of the magnets so the magnets are repelling eachother when passing the sticky spot. But, I'm sure you already knew that.
How in h... is it possible to change the magnetism at the sticky spot without actually spending energy to remove the magnet from it, or twist the polarity into repulsion? The answer is pretty much given. It's not possible.
Vidar
Floor,
I have been studying your drawings and especially pdf 5. I really think you have something that will work. I have one small suggestion to make. If you offset your inner magnets ( I guess you could call them the neutralizing magnets) so that as one center magnet is forced to rotate the other center magnet on the other end of the shaft could be reset then I think you would have a working device. All you should need for input power would be a small motor to rotate a disc with the neutralizing magnets on it. As you have shown in your pdf there should be almost no drag or force against the inner magnets as they go between the outer and center magnets.
You and Luc are doing some great work! Thanks for sharing your results.
Carroll
@Norman6538
following your suggestions... clarifying and correcting the texts
Magnets ....... C A E B D
When the mid magnets (A, B) have been removed from between the outer magnets (C, D)
(this can be done, with out doing work against magnetic forces from magnets A,B
and / or magnets C,D)
the inner magnet (E) is compelled by magnetic forces to rotate
(both the attracting and the repelling forces between magnets (C, D) and magnet (E)
are combined to do work (output) as rotation of magnet (E) by 180 degrees).
After this 180 degree rotation, the mid magnets (A, B) can be returned to their first position of,
in between the inner (E) and outer magnets (C, D).
(as before, this can be done, with out doing work against magnetic forces from magnets A,B
and / or magnets C,D ).
With the mid magnets (A, B) returned to their position of between the outer magnets (C,D)and the inner magnet (E), the inner magnet (E) is free from ALL magnetic forces which would compel it to rotate.
(the inner magnet (E) can now be manually rotated 180 degrees with out doing work against
magnetic forces from magnets A,B and / or magnets C,D ).
C A E B D
Thanks Norman your observations are appreciated.
floor
@citfta
Thanks for the suggestion.
GotoLuc is really doing a good job I think.
regards
floor
@LowQ
Glad to see you back.
In general, generalizations about what "is or is not possible" with magnets
are off topic here.
Please be specific as to how your ideas apply precisely to the devices described in this topic.
or
Pleaae post any more general discussion ideas, in the "magnets motion and measurements"
topic.
regards
floor
Or just use the moving magnets to influence coils that charge caps ,and then dump the caps to get by the sticky spot.
I don't think anything is impossible.
artv
Quote from: Low-Q on January 02, 2017, 04:09:29 PM
I'm not trying to be a party killer here, but feel that I need to input some realism ;)
Norman, you are right about your observations of magnets. These observations are the same for everyone, and magnets does not change how they work depending of how a person wants them to work. Magnets are magnets, and they give a damn about the engineer who have a vision of perpetual motion or excess energy from permanent magnets. No discredit to Floor - because curiosity and engineering moves the world forward, but also creates proves of failures so we don't repeat them over and over again.
However, to avoid the sticky spot, you also take away the pulling force that pulls the magnets together - to do work. The sticky spot must be there until it's not needed, and that's what happening in an electric motor. Except the electric motor change the polarity on one of the magnets so the magnets are repelling eachother when passing the sticky spot. But, I'm sure you already knew that.
How in h... is it possible to change the magnetism at the sticky spot without actually spending energy to remove the magnet from it, or twist the polarity into repulsion? The answer is pretty much given. It's not possible.
Vidar
Quote from: Floor on January 02, 2017, 05:03:13 PM
Right on Floor. Its getting very clear now.
I'm still not clear on how that twist does work and then gets reset...
I'll work more at understanding that.
Norman
@Norman6538
following your suggestions... clarifying and correcting the texts
Magnets ....... C A E B D
When the mid magnets (A, B) have been removed from between the outer magnets (C, D)
(this can be done, with out doing work against magnetic forces from magnets A,B
and / or magnets C,D)
the inner magnet (E) is compelled by magnetic forces to rotate
(both the attracting and the repelling forces between magnets (C, D) and magnet (E)
are combined to do work (output) as rotation of magnet (E) by 180 degrees).
After this 180 degree rotation, the mid magnets (A, B) can be returned to their first position of,
in between the inner (E) and outer magnets (C, D).
(as before, this can be done, with out doing work against magnetic forces from magnets A,B
and / or magnets C,D ).
With the mid magnets (A, B) returned to their position of between the outer magnets (C,D)and the inner magnet (E), the inner magnet (E) is free from ALL magnetic forces which would compel it to rotate.
(the inner magnet (E) can now be manually rotated 180 degrees with out doing work against
magnetic forces from magnets A,B and / or magnets C,D ).
C A E B D
Thanks Norman your observation are appreciated.
floor
As I was going to sleep I got it Floor.
my labels will be mags 1-5 left to right.
r = repel a = attract and NS north south poles.
1(NS) r 2(SN) a 3(SN) r 4(NS) a 5(NS)
then 2 and 4 drop down leaving 3 like this
1(NS) r 3(SN) r 5(NS)
so 3 will twist from the 2 r repel forces on both sides BUT
notice the further weaker problem.......
then we have
1(NS) a 3(NS) a 5(NS)
and we lift/push 2,4 back in place giving
1(NS) r 2(SN) r 3(NS) a 4(NS) a 5(NS)
so we can fully reset 3 with a twist and be ready for
another cycle...
VERY CLEVER BUT FURTHER WEAKER is the gotcha...
The real story will be in the measurements which must include
the work required for the 2/4 drop and lift back and the 1 twist to reset.
Norman
More .............
Please find the 4 attached png files
floor
Quote from: shylo on January 02, 2017, 05:41:37 PM
Or just use the moving magnets to influence coils that charge caps ,and then dump the caps to get by the sticky spot.
I don't think anything is impossible.
artv
You can charge capacitors using magnets and coils. In general a generator that deliver energy into capacitors. The energy needed to do this is given from the capacitance and the voltage. Considering the resistance in the coil, the loss from eddy currents, and magnetic hysteresis, you must add more energ to the rotor, than the energy you put into the capacitor. This loss due to complexity into the system will lower the efficiency compared to not using capacitors at all.
@Floor
You are right about the topic. No need to counter fight the ideas. I will stop doing that now, and whish you good luck instead ;-)
I would however strongly recommend that you build it to see how it really works. Theories remains theories as long they are not tested in real life. Only then you can accept the theory as right or false.
Vidar
@LowQ
See the photos at
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg489549/#msg489549
Give me some real questions / ideas, related to the TD unit and I will be glad to chat.
regards
floor
Quote from: Floor on January 03, 2017, 02:18:34 PM
@LowQ
See the photos at
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg489549/#msg489549 (http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg489549/#msg489549)
Give me some real questions / ideas, related to the TD unit and I will be glad to chat.
regards
floor
Oh, sorry. I have been watching this thread before, but totally forgot what it was all about. So I totally missed out that you actually have built and built all the time. Keep it up. Nice to see that someone actualy is building something :-)
I have no ideas or questions to add this far.
Vidar
@All interested
I'm not very concerned that the correct work formulas have not been applied
up to this point, of if they continue to be.
But here is a description of a method of calculating joules
when the force applied changes non uniformly over distance.
cheers
floor
@floor
I changed my testing setup to be more ridgid and altered the process order of recording the data along with a new digital force guage and now the findings are closer to what I expected.
The tests that once indicated a gain of over 13% were repeated along with several other interactions that I thought would indicate a path of gain and at this time nothing has shown a gain of over 3% and in fact the test results varied from about +2.5% to a -2.5% depending on the test.
To me, the results indicate no gain with any path I have tested so far.
Next I plan to setup for the TD data collection and hope the data indicates a different result.
I will be using neo's which may have a different result than your findings with ceramic magnets, but it's a good place to start.
@Webby
It is 0.27925 mm of weight travel per degree on my device.
thanks
Also I reworked the first page of my last PNG file post (two pages) I think it's
statemennt is more clearly made now. I could use feed back on it.
The reworked version of page 1 is posted below.
@Lumen
wow sounds fantastic !
Thanks for the up date.
Would you mind starting / dedicating a new topic to your
next test sets ?
Lumens TD test or name it as you like ?
regards
floor
@Norman6538
Thanks Norman.
Lets keep figureing it out.
floor
Quote from: lumen on January 04, 2017, 07:00:48 PM
@floor
I changed my testing setup to be more ridgid and altered the process order of recording the data along with a new digital force guage and now the findings are closer to what I expected.
The tests that once indicated a gain of over 13% were repeated along with several other interactions that I thought would indicate a path of gain and at this time nothing has shown a gain of over 3% and in fact the test results varied from about +2.5% to a -2.5% depending on the test.
To me, the results indicate no gain with any path I have tested so far.
Next I plan to setup for the TD data collection and hope the data indicates a different result.
I will be using neo's which may have a different result than your findings with ceramic magnets, but it's a good place to start.
+/- 2.5% sounds reasonable. That just means the measurements are made properly, and typical output is in average 0 - as expected with a closed loop system.
Vidar
This design and exploration was long winded, Not O.U.,
riddled with errors.
Still a good learning experience, worth while and very messy.
THE NEXT TWO POSTS
ARE THE RESULT OF MY EDITING MANY POST INTO
JUST TWO POSTS, FOR CONTINUITY.
xxxxx 1
This kind of device lifts more weight a greater distance than
is input into it
as
a lighter weight is lowered a shorter distance.
xxxxx 2
The output work is a little more than twice the input work.
It uses magnets to do this.
xxxxx 3
Strictly speaking there is no net work done.
xxxxx 4
The work output is undone in resetting the device back to its starting
position.
xxxxx 5
But the work input is also undone.
Zero net work in and zero net work out.
It can also be linked to a second unit (like itself) that operates at a larger scale.
xxxxx 6
A series of the devices can be linked so that the scale of the final output is
many times larger than the initial input (10x or 100x ?). But, I'm pretty certain that
there is a maximum / limit to which this cascading effect can be done.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
xxxxx 7
If the "out put" weight object were a magnet being lowered through a wire coil
(the magnet's fall is the reset), that weight object would still fall to its lowered /
start position even when a resistive load is placed across the coil.
A capacitive load across the coil would be problematic, I'm pretty sure .
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Again
Using this device (the twist drive)
a heavier weight is lifted by a lighter weight lowering a little more than
1/2 the distance the heavier weight is lifted. It uses magnets to do this.
xxxxx 8
This process can be done repetitively, and even when done in an
escalating cascade of the devices,
as long as
the process is reversed at the end of the cascade,
as a deescalating cascade.
@ https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a
an other design posted by synchro 1
@ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOBZsCWMDzI
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Here, in this video (below), 133 grams is lifted 41.5 units of distance by the lowering of 115
grams 22 units of distance.
EDIT This was 105g not 115g on the sliding unit. Ratios are actually better than was
originally calculated here (it is 1.26 to 1 and not 1.156 to 1) END EDIT
A lifting distance ratio of 1.886 to 1
and
A weight difference ratio of 1.156 to 1. EDIT (1.26 to 1 and not 1.156 to 1)
@ https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3or5
If I had subtracted the weight of the SL thread tensioning weight,
while also adding the input weight in decreasing increments...
The average force over the 22 units of input travel distance whould be
about 85 grams ?
A weight difference ratio of 1.564 to 1 ? and not 1.156 to 1 EDIT not 1.26 to 1
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
It is interesting to note that the 22 units of travel distance upon the
input / sliding unit has remained the same in both demonstrations.
however ....
In this, the https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a video / demo,
input is 105 grams by 22 units of travel (105 x 22 = 2310)
and
output is 115 grams by 40 units of travel (115 x 40 = 4600)
A lifting distance ratio of 1.818 to 1
and
A weight difference ratio of 1.095 to 1
...
In the present https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a video,
133 grams is lifted 41.5 units of distance by the lowering of 105 grams
22 units of distance.
A lifting distance ratio of 1.886 to 1
and
A weight difference ratio of 1.266 to 1.
EDIT / addition 2/7/22 if the input force had been increased incrementally
during its application the weight ratio output to input would also have been
closer to 1.564 to 1 rather than 1.266 to 1. At an average input force of 90
grams, the input weight ratio would be 1.477 out to 1 in.
5519.5 'output' to 1980 'input' or 2.78 'output' to 1 'input'
133 g x 41.5 deg. = 5519.5 and 90 g x 22 deg. 1980
end of EDIT
Slightly stronger magnets are used in the second video
AN EDIT WAS HERE
and RO rotates farther because it is weighted heavier.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Big edit
So....
xxxxx 9
Wouldn't this be more mechanical work out than mechanical work in...
if a series of escalating, cascading "twist drive" units, caused the cyclical
raising and then lowering of 5 kg by 0.5 m ...
as a result of a cyclical input, as the raising and then lowering of 100 g by 5 mm ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
xxxxx 10
If the "out put" weight object is lowered into water,
( the object's fall is the reset),
that weight object would not fall.
because
the buoyancy is constant and would continuously counter act
the downward force.
but
If the "out put" weight object is a magnet being lowered through a wire coil
(again the magnet's fall is the reset)
that magnet would still fall to its lowered / start position
even when a resistive load is placed across the coil.
because
The magnet's fall is resisted only while the magnet is in motion
therefore
that resistance is not continuous
and
the magnet will accelerate and then slow down
again and again during its descent
but
it will still reach the bottom of its fall
and
this will generate electric power from the coil
As acknowledgment...
It was an other who suggested the use of
this type of generator
EDIT / ADDITION This was years ago !
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
CAN TIME BE TRADED FOR ENERGY ?
Some of you may have all ready noticed these things but please
bear with me in order that others may come to understand the
point here.
For clarity please note that the "output" weight object is the one that
hangs from the rotating magnet pulley. Also note, the reason I will
sometimes enclose the words "input" and "output" in quotation marks,
is that there is no net work done in either the input, nor in the output
actions, during the course of a full cycling of the device. That work is
canceled out.
If Isaac Newton's observation are correct in this context (they are) then the
energy exchanged in the actions of the twist drive device must balance to
zero (they do).
Which is pretty much the same as to say, that within the context of the
twist drive ...
In order for the twist drive to be reset to its starting position, all of
the energy present as the falling of the output weight object must be
utilized in the resetting action.
This is valid and...
If any of the energy of the falling of the output weight object
is used to do work, outside of the twist drive mechanism its self,
the twist drive cannot reset to its starting position.
This remains true, even though the "output" work is more than two times
greater than the "input" work.
Question ...
Is the net gain from the magnets or from gravity ?
P.S.
This is not theoretical.
riddle
no
smoky color
in the air,
cause
H20 power
is every where
it blew
in the window
and out the door
so the tin man could
stand upon his
floor
Question ...
Is the net gain from the magnets or from gravity ? :)
best wishes
and
thanks y'all
floor
reply from smOKy2
Neither
Each one is considered 'conservative' when observed independently.
Net gain comes from the understanding of the difference between the two.
end
Thanks smOky2
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Once again let me state that some are already aware of these things.
I would like to ask those people to bear with me once again in order
that others can come to understand a few more details here.
In this other device @
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOBZsCWMDzI
We see the lighter object lifting a heavier one by the same
distance the lighter object is lowered. an EDIT was here
If the leverage factors are set up differently, the same device can
instead, lift a same as the lighter weight amount, but by a greater
distance than the lighter weight falls. an EDIT was here also
Similarly the twist drive can instead lift two times that of the inputted
weight (even more), to the same height to which the input weight is
lowered by simply changing the leverages involved.
It is well that the reader should also understand, that the raising and / or
lowering of the twist drive weight objects can be done slowly, without
any ill effects.
best wishes
floor
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Would it be more mechanical work out than mechanical work in
if a series of escalating, cascading "twist drive" units, caused the
cyclical raising and then lowering of 5 kg by 0.5 m as a result of
a cyclical input, as the raising and then lowering of 100 g by 5 mm ?
The answer is no.
But this kind of process can in theory, lift an automobile to a
height of 6 feet, as the result of an input as the application
of 100 grams as force over a displacement of 5 millimeters.
To my knowledge, no one has done this yet. That the process
can be escalated to that degree is theoretical. There may
be unforeseen limitations. Such a device would be large, expensive
to manufacture and cumbersome.
However that may be, it remains that the process can be escalated
to a very large degree and any argument to the contrary would not be a
reasonable contention. Not even. :)
best wishes
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Magnet falling through a copper tube @
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30oPZO_z7-4
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/magnet-falling-though-copper-pipe.1010705/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/magnet-falling-though-copper-pipe.1010705/page-2
ADDED 10/21/23 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0svs-uGx8s&t=107s
and so on
Returning to this question (my own)
Would it be more mechanical work out than mechanical work in
if a series of escalating, cascading "twist drive" units, caused the
cyclical raising and then lowering of 5 kg by 0.5 m as a result of
a cyclical input, as the raising and then lowering of 100 g by 5 mm ?
Changing the answer up with a small emphasis.
The answer (classically) is no.
Here comes the but...
When one observes the momentum present during the operating of the
twist drive (no third magnet present as the output weight), it becomes
apparent that the momentum of the input weight object and that of the
output weight object are greater combined, than would be the momentum
of the input weight object alone. These two objects have neither, the same
mass nor the same travel distance. The output weight object has a greater
magnitude of each of these characteristics. The full cycling of each object
(as rise and fall, fall and rise) occurs during essentially the same time period.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
There are now 37 videos on my channel at DailyMotion.com. They are not monetized.
@ https://www.dailymotion.com/seethisvid1
There are rest assured, many misstatements made during many of these videos.
Go figure. Be forewarned, they are produced on the fly and without edits.
There are at least 3 twist drive videos. Here is one of those
@ https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a
Momentum ...
from 6 minutes and 50 seconds to 8 minutes and 50 seconds.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Another is here @
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4p1ome
168 grams is lifted 43 units of distance by the fall of 158 grams at
22 units of distance.
> 2 x "output"
P.S.
Thanks again smOky2 for your comments and observations.
best wishes
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Dropping a neodymium magnet
through a 1/2 inch inside diameter, copper tube.
The magnet weighs 22 grams static upon the scale.
The copper tube weighs 190 grams.
The copper tube weighs 212 grams as the magnet falls through it.
Once the magnet arrives at the bottom of its fall through the tube,
the combined weight of the tube and the magnet is also 212 grams.
Let me try to describe this in a another way.
One could say that the "twist drive" device is useless. If one
uses its output in some way other than to reset itself back to
its start position, it will not reset itself. It is only 1/2 O.U. .
I know, its sick, but the device really can operate in a series of
escalating cascades, to the point that one is lifting an automobile
with one finger's effort.
foreword....
The mechanic has lifted my car six feet into the air (please don't drop it).
In doing so, he has just created an arrangement within a gravitational
field of energy.
But what use is it ?
None,
unless there is interaction with a second field. In this instance, it is a field of activity
(auto repairs) within the first field (beneath the lifted car).
In one sense, it is only because we have
stalled the automobile in time,
that we are able to get use from the potential kinetic energy of its position
relative to the ground. We left it raised in the air.
Even though we made no direct use of the kinetic energy of its position
relative to the ground, lifting it was beneficial to us. Was it not ?
If after the repairs are performed and we don't lower the car back to the ground,
well guess what ? It's not profitable to us either. :)
A very short video @
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30oPZO_z7-4
added 11-05-23 see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0svs-uGx8s&t=107s
These (just above) are not my own videos.
Dropping a neodymium magnet
through a 1/2 inch inside diameter, copper tube.
The magnet weighs 22 grams static upon the scale.
The copper tube weighs 190 grams.
The copper tube weighs 212 grams as the magnet falls through it.
Once the magnet arrives at the bottom of its fall through the tube,
the combined weight of the tube and the magnet is also 212 grams.
If one wants the magnet to drop through the coil faster...
It needs to weigh more.
or
It needs to be attached to a weight object.
Either way the combined or total weight, must be the correct weight,
as needed for the twist drive to lift and then reset.
How much that weight needs to be, depends upon how many times one has
applied a series of, escalating, cascading twist drives.
Next question..
Can the twist drive output weight object (as a magnet)
be lifted (by the twist drive actions), while the wire coil is shorted ?
Given that Issac Newtons observations are correct, then I think the answer is yes.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Next question
Can the permanent magnets be replaced with electromagnets and
the device still exhibit a net gain ?
Maybe but I don't think so.
Who knows ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Next question
Is there a second field, other than gravitational, in which the magnetic
could interact with a net gain ?
Magnetic and electric ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Someone, once told me that the same kind of result as the twist drive
can be arrived at using springs instead of magnets. At that time, I requested
that person to show me how to do this with springs. He didn't respond.
Next question..
xxxxx 11
Does someone know of a way to accomplish this and can they provide a link or
drawing and explanations which demonstrates springs rather than magnets
doing this ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Back to this question...
Is there a second field, other than gravitational, in which the magnetic
could interact with a net gain ?
Like, say, between the magnetic and the electric ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Next question..
Could this be the underlying principal of operation in some of those
resonant circuits which are perhaps O.U. ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Is the twist drive O.U. or is it maybe only 1/2 of O.U. ?
I don't know / what ever..
Returning to the question of / examination of momentum and it's interaction in / with
the twist drive.
Given that if the RO, 'output' weight object is a pinion gear sharing a common axle with a
fly wheel.
Would the weight object descend and reset the twist drive action given that during
its descent, the pinion gear of the weight object, is engaged with a rack gear, thus
causing, the fly wheel to accelerate against inertia and spin ?
I have not tried it, but I think so.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Next question.
Can energy be extracted during the fall of the sliding magnet's 'input' weight object ?
Edit... Directly from the 'input' weight object.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
A little offtopic. :)
So I think, in those cases when the happy author of a perpetual motion machine demonstrates to numerous witnesses his device at work.Maybe the so-called inventor, possess telekinesis, and standing at the table, rotate the wheel or something else. No device will detect this.
Has anyone thought about this? ;)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
@ kolbacict
Thanks
for the company, comments and good humor.
best wishes
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
next...
Now that we have a spinny thingy (this is required for all O.U. devices). :)
The question of wasting energy via repeated accelerations against
inertia / reciprocating actions..
The energy expended to cause acceleration is in relationship to
the mass of the accelerated object
and
the velocity to which it is accelerated.
Keep the mass low ?
or...
Keep the speed of the magnet travels slow !
floor
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Gravity is a weak force. It takes a mass as large as a moon or a
planet before we generally consider it as significant.
Permanent magnets have mass s that are large in proportion to the force they
exert. While it is true that magnets can exert tremendously greater force per
their mass than do gravitational bodies. Their mass / inertia and physical size
still represent considerable limitations in terms of power / energy transfer within
a unit of time.
Once again, while some of you are already aware of these things I will point out
that we perhaps need the revelation of a solid state method.
Hopefully in the very near future ?
P.S.
to this community which has shared all of this with me..
thank you again
This is an important point.
If you are going to build this as an escalating combination of
twist drive units.
The Output Force
The magnitude of the force output of the twist drive is not the same
throughout the motion of the rotating magnet's retun to 90 degrees off
from the sliding magnet. Force is greatest when the rotating magnet is
at it's greatest rotaion from 90 and that force decreases as the rotating
magnet approaches 90 degrees off from the sliding magnet. Peak force is
at the beginning of the output stroke.
The Input Force
Peak force is required at the beginning of the input stroke.
EDIT
(Where ever) the peaks of these two forces are out of synchronization, they
need to be in synchronization before a single twist drive can efficiently deliver the
input needed to drive a next or two other twist drives.
This can be done mechanically.
The force to distance ratio can be manipulated
so that it is shifting throughout the
output motion.
or
The force to distance ratio can be manipulated
so that it is shifting throughout the
input motion.
or
Both the input and the output can be manipulated.
One method of accomplishing this would be to use eccentric pulleys
of the correct shape/s as the input and / or output pulley/s.
EVEN OUT (FLATTEN) THE FORCE TO DISTANCE RATIOS OR CURVES
There are many other magnet interactions that will accomplish essentially
the same thing as does the twist drive.
We have been building this list for years now,
while at the same time,
mostly not really knowing why.
We've been simply following our intuitions, passions and a collective trend.
This one @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOBZsCWMDzI
all ready has / it incorporates
evening out (flattening) the force to distance ratios (curves) into its operation.
best wishes
floor
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Next question
xxxxx 12
Can the role that gravity plays in resetting the twist drive,
be instead filled by a second twist drive opposing a first twist drive ?
Yes.
Note... are the peak forces in sync ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Next question
xxxxx 13
Can two opposing twist drives be linked
such that contained within that mechanical linkage,
is an additional mechanical arrangement where in a permanent magnet
is driven through a wire coil
(at a right angle to gravity's pull) ?
Yes.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
xxxxx 14
Given the above arrangement of two twist drives
so mechanically linked.
Can the twist drives each in turn, reset one the other,
and also produce electric power from
the permanent magnet and coil ?
I'm going to yes to this one as well.
floor
P.S.
As per always.
Those presented here and which are novel methods, designs and devices
are given into the public domain. See what people can do when we work
together ?
Don't get into trouble infringing on patents.
Addendum on 2/5/22
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Next question...
xxxxx 15
Can 'input' needed to drive the sliding magnet toward the rotating
magnet have as its origin the energy of the 'output' ?
yes
in time :)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Using off the shelf magnets the twist drive interaction gives an initial
2.78 'output' to 1 'input' but this ratio can be cascaded to very many times
greater than this.
See previous post @
https://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg563518/#msg563518
Rewrite 2-10-22
Check this out.
Next question...
Reluctance and reactance are some what analogous to the properties of a physical object's inertia.
Can the speed of magnetic field change be in a manner of speaking, be out ran ?
Not in terms of the electromagnetic force caused accelerations of permanent magnets, armatures
and so on, against inertia, Which is a very cool area of experimentation here @
https://overunity.com/18996/my-kundel-motor-replication-with-ardiuno/msg563900/#msg563900
But rather instead...
Can the speed of magnetic field changes be out ran, if not directly in the fields, then
within, for example, an iron core / at a molecular level?
Next question
Can changes in polarity orientations and/or magnitude be accomplished slowly
or perhaps even stalled in the capacitive and/or magnetic, one in relationship to
the other ? Or one speeded up and the other slowed down ?
No doubt.
Next question...
What kind of cascadeing can be accomplished in either of these properties ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
just some thoughts...
The Volt is the SI unit of electromotive force. It pushes electric current in circuits (this is
actually the motion of a field / not so much so of electrons). A Force (electromotive force)
that gives rise to the potential for electric current to flow.
The Coulomb is the SI unit of electric charge. It causes a capacitor to store energy via the
force of attraction of electrons to protons. A Force (coulomb force) that gives rise to the
potential for charged bodies to either attract or repel. Also it gives rise to charge being
stored on each side of a dielectric insulator.
Electric currents in conductors give rise to magnetic fields.
Shifting / changing / moving magnetic fields give rise to electric currents in near
by conductors.
Fields of electric charge are not a current / do not give rise to a magnetic field.
Moving magnetic fields do not disturb static electric fields / do not directly alter
the charge upon a capacitor.
I am interested in hearing
good criticisms (clear, understandable, well stated, well reasoned)
FACTS
regarding, essentially 15 statements from here
https://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg563518/#msg563518
until through this post
https://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg563551/#msg563551
any 1 of the 15 statements or as many of them as you wish to give an
evaluation of.
I generally leave this topic open to comments, suggestions, criticisms for at
least a few days after my last posting.
I am reopening it up to posts for the above reasons.
Make no mistake, I will delete what I consider to be B.S. posts.
If you want your post to stand, then please make it worth reading.
i.e take at least a little pride in it / enjoy it / put some time into it / make it relevant /
maybe make it entertaining ?.... ... .
please have some fun with it if you so choose.
If you fear your post may be deleted...
Make and keep a copy for re-posting in the floor's dust bin or for posting
elsewhere.
Technically based opinions are also welcome.
Please state opinions as such (i.e. opinion ... ... ...).
Addendum
Generally / nearly always, when I move a post, this is done to maintain the
continuity of this topic. Please do not consider my moving or removing of any posts
here as a reflection upon, the otherwise merits of or validity of that post.
best wishes
floor
If you need some way to insure anonymity in this...
check list
0. buy a used lap top computer at a yard sale(best) or thrift store that is far from your
work and home, use cash only and do not buy anything else while there. Put tape over its
camera before you tun it on.
1. do not use your own computer / other device or someone's you know.
2. do not use your own internet access or someone's you know.
3. do not make access at or near near where you live or work or otherwise frequent,
and if you live in a small town don't even do it.
4. don't make access while you are on camera or the approach to the physical
access location is on camera ?
5. take the bus to that location.
6. wear a complete disguise including shoes cover your eyes and put the
disguise on while in a public bathroom stall.
7. don't leave finger prints.
8. destroy the device you use when done.
9. remove the disguise in a public bathroom stall and dispose of the disguise / every thing,
remotely from where you live or work.
10. do not take a cell phone with you.
11. do not put your automobile on camera.
12. do not contact or speak with anyone, especially if you know them.
13. do not use any kind of card / plastic to pay for coffee or pay for the bus and so on.
don't even, take any plastic with you. Get "naked".
14. do not ever use / allow use of, the connecting device for any thing other than this
one purpose, destroy first then dispose of remotely when done.
15. do not ever allow the device to connect to your own network, one you use, or that
of anyone you know and so on (neither before use nor after use).
Do not use a cell phone !
16. do not break the law or do anything which you consider to be wrong.
What else ?...
More...
17. do not post photos or drawings, or texts, that have been on cameras, computers,
thumb drives, printers, word processors or software you own or is connected to
you / you have ever used before (neither before use nor after use).
18. do not do it at the hotel you are at or at the restaurant next door.
19. are you starting to get it ?
20. do not be in a hurry / do not worry / you have until the cascadeing, satellite network,
collisions happen, to get it done. :)
Don't use currency, use cheeseburgers as currency
Be sure to eat the wrapper too ( no fingerprints)
Feel free to remove this advice
If it was already mentioned somewhere !
Yes !
Thank you.
Sorry for the oversight / omission.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoDHn63mYsg
Mechanical work from magnets... how to
TD (twist drive) forces diagramed
@
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wfk0d
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
TD test bed parameters and limits of sensitivity.
@
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6va1an
see also
https://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg564076/#msg564076
locked...
unlocked