This topic is being created for presentations of replications of
the "TD" and similar measurement sets.
It's not intended for discussion of theory of, or the explinations of, per say.
regards
floor
Hello floor and everyone
The below video is a replication (a la gotoluc) of your Permanent Magnet Twist Drive (torque amplifier)
Also included below is a pic of the videos test data which seems to support (on my test device) a 37% Torque Gain on the output side compared to the torque needed on the input side.
You may want to make some popcorn as the video is kind of long (18 min) since I took the time to first explain the basic effect for newcomers and youtubers to understand how the basic effect works.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmCQVg9qRmQ
Kind regards
Luc
Hi Luc,
Great setup and thanks for taking the arduous job of building and showing it.
Of course, we need to thank first to Floor to openly share his own work on the idea.
Gyula
I agree - great set-up and data-taking. Thank you, Luc.
It is indeed curious.
Is it possible to convert the action here to a continuous motion? I suppose it would involve oscillating (engage-disengage) as well as rotary (torque) motions ...
A small test device that would keep moving, would be an awesome Christmas present to the world!
Thanks Gyula
That's correct!... the credit goes to floor, it is his hard work that I basically copied (at the end) and shared my results to further confirm his findings.
Hopefully now this will encourage the great minds to suggest mechanisms which could capitalize on this effect to turn this into continuous rotation.
Luc
To everyone
Please keep in mind that this topic was created by floor for replicators and people who would like to have a discussion about a replicated device.
With that said, here would not be the place to discuss your general opinions or obtain information about the magnet Twist Drive effect.
Here is floor's original topic "Work from 2 magnets > 19%" which should be used for general discussions:
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/ (http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/)
and another topic called "Magnets, motion and measurement" was created for beginners to discuss basic physics:
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/ (http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/)
Thanks for your cooperation
Kind regards
Luc
this 90% rotation effect reminds me of http://www.kundelmagnetics.com/
force and reciprocation.
Quote from: Here2njoy on November 30, 2016, 12:54:32 PMthis 90% rotation effect reminds me of http://www.kundelmagnetics.com/ (http://www.kundelmagnetics.com/)force and reciprocation.
Looks to me like the same principle. Guess they never compared the two forces?
Quote from: webby1 on November 30, 2016, 01:29:23 PM
Hi Luc,
I will watch the video again but I do not see the included cost of resetting the torque arm.
Both engaging and disengaging (resetting) are there in my video and also posted above.
Below is an input Torque chart I just now made.
Luc
Here is test 2 demo which has a higher torque output of now 3 ft/lb by reducing the magnet air gap, however, interestingly enough the overall efficiency is the same as test 1
Link to test 2 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0POfohSjQk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0POfohSjQk)
Luc
Quote from: webby1 on November 30, 2016, 04:03:58 PM
What is the actual degrees of rotation and the actual arm lengths,, just if I want to have the particulars close,
The input arm has 80 degrees of travel and output is has 40 degrees. Both arms are exactly 12 inches from center of axle to where the scale attaches
Quote from: webby1 on November 30, 2016, 04:03:58 PM
With the system in the disengaged condition,, how much are you putting in to reset the output arm?
If I was to use the gained torque from the output to reset the output arm back up but keep in mind this is not what the test device was designed to do, as the device sits now, it would takes an average of 0.4 foot pounds from the 0.44 foot pounds left over.
This amount could easily be reduced in less than half with no extra from the input or even possibly eliminated with a design to do such a thing.
I'm sure there are better ways to go about it then bringing the output arm back up. This is what the Sunny Miller device is attempting to do. Keep it circulating.
Quote from: webby1 on November 30, 2016, 04:03:58 PM
The weight of the arms does not matter since the in and out relative to the source of force,, gravity,, is exactly the same they cancel, but you still have a field interaction that will be influencing the disc rotating.
I agree and I think it has been addressed in the test 2 video
Quote from: webby1 on November 30, 2016, 04:03:58 PM
ETA:
Just as a ball park guesstimate I think you will find an average of around .917 above the weight of the arm to reset,,
I will double check that
Not far for a guesstimate
Luc
Thanks Luc
and others
The topic Magnets, motion and measurement
was created for beginners like me to discuss basic physics.
I would like the Work from 2 magnets > 19% output 2 to be for general
discussion of the TD principle. All of my presentations, documents, and
so on can be found there
and the present topic TD replications for TD replications presentations.
but what ever
best wishes
floor
@gotoluc
Quote from Luc
"Hopefully now this will encourage the great minds to suggest mechanisms which could capitalize on this effect to turn this into continuous rotation." End Quote
If it's O.U... it doesn't need to be turned into continous rotation.
Recipricating motion is just fine. However, momentum could be partially conserved
by convertion to ratational after the recipricating. Think about it, I mean doing so
wouldn't exactly be wasteful, would it ?
thanks again
floor
Quote from: webby1 on November 30, 2016, 06:29:20 PM
Not sure what you mean on that last one,, do you mean that I was not to far off?
Yes
Hi floor,
I've edited my post to hopefully reflect your instructions: http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496651/#msg496651 (http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496651/#msg496651)
Quote from: Floor on November 30, 2016, 09:21:09 PM
If it's O.U... it doesn't need to be turned into continous rotation. Recipricating motion is just fine. However, momentum could be partially conservedby convertion to ratational after the recipricating. Think about it, I mean doing sowouldn't exactly be wasteful, would it ?
I agree and maybe reciprocal would be the first device to build but I think a rotational device would be a more practical and adaptable device.
Regards
Luc
Dear webby1
I consider your input constructive and not intrusive.
Can you post a video, pics or drawing of your device. It would help to visualize your explanation
Thanks
Luc
@Webby
Please, not considered an intrusion by me either, I appreciate your Knowledge
and input.
@ all readers
But this topic is not for theories, nor design "improvements"... nor of or for an
"in the future working motor design" etc..
The project needs to have a robust body of evidence.
The project NEEDS and appreciates,... multiple (reasonably similar), well done and well described replications.
Some details are directly related to that goal, others will tend to clutter the topic or even worse
side track it.
If you will, ....please give us all, a fantastic replication, well described, ... and answer any an all
inquires as to it's mechanical operation.
Straight up empirical only, IE. videos, measurements, descriptions, calcs and so on.
No abstractions here please.
I hope my reasoning for this understandable.
Thank you for participating
enjoy
floor
@Floor
QuoteIf you will, ....please give us all, a fantastic replication, well described, ... and answer any an all [/size]inquires as to it's mechanical operation. Straight up empirical only, IE. videos, measurements, descriptions, calcs and so on. No abstractions here please.I hope my reasoning for this understandable.
A couple of years ago I saw a video of a working machine which was identical to this concept using four or five rotor sections translating a reciprocal magnet motion to a rotating magnet disk. I believe the device had multiple patents over many years thus this is by no means a new technology.
The inventor also mentioned that out of the many working machines he had built only a few demonstrated efficiency high enough to warrant a practical machine. As such I think that rather than trying to reinvent the wheel 10 years too late some thought should go towards a more practical design. I will try to find the name of the inventor and the patents covering this effect if i can.
AC
@allcanadian
Wrong topic for your posting here. Please post that pattent if you find it,
in the work from 2 magnets topic. A larger body of evidence is good.
@Gotoluc
Some observations on your device.
please see the attached PNG files.
floor
Hi floor
yes you're right!... I've addressed it in test 2 video and also yesterday made modification to correct it (see below pic) by adding a counter weight on the opposite side of the arm which was intended for that purpose.
Thanks
Luc
Hi everyone,
Below is test 3 demo which uses a different magnet geometry more like the shape floor used in his test device.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKHtXVw28Qc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKHtXVw28Qc)
Luc
The below is test 3 Input Torque curve chart.
Keep in mind these are Foot Grams measured on the 12 inch torque arms.
Luc
And here is test 3 Output Torque curve chart.
Keep in mind these are Foot Grams measured on the 12 inch torque arms.
Luc
Good work, Luc!
It is indeed curious. I've been thinking of ways to convert the action here to a continuous motion, using gravity to drop an upper magnet (at right angles) in close proximity to the lower magnet prior to the "twisting phase" - then using energy from the twisting phase to raise the upper magnet back up to the starting height then turn it 90deg to the starting position. That is the more difficult action to resolve (for me).
This would be a small model involving oscillating (engage-disengage) as well as rotary (torque) motions ...
A small test device that would keep moving would be an awesome Christmas present to the world!
@luc
1. A few degrees of rotation of RO toward 90 deg. off from parallel with SL
(3 to 5 deg. ?)... is the optimal starting position for RO (in the same direction
it will rotate when RO's force is measured).
2. But also RO must hit it's stop at 90 deg. off from parallel to SLand no farther.
A full 90 degs. of rotation will not be acheived.
3. Im not certain that the counter weight on the RO scale indicator as is.....
is giving the needed effect.
If it is, then,
when there are no magnetic force interactions Between RO and SL (one magnet removed ?)
the RO scale indicator will ballance (have no tendancy to rotate by gravity's pull at any
degree of it's rotation).
Don't rush it man......
It's bound to take some time to dial it all in.
Nice work
floor
Quote from: DrJones on December 03, 2016, 10:10:22 PM
Good work, Luc!
It is indeed curious. I've been thinking of ways to convert the action here to a continuous motion, using gravity to drop an upper magnet (at right angles) in close proximity to the lower magnet prior to the "twisting phase" - then using energy from the twisting phase to raise the upper magnet back up to the starting height then turn it 90deg to the starting position. That is the more difficult action to resolve (for me).
This would be a small model involving oscillating (engage-disengage) as well as rotary (torque) motions ...
A small test device that would keep moving would be an awesome Christmas present to the world!
Thanks Dr Jones for your post and thinking of ways to convert this action into continuous motion.
Luc
Quote from: Floor on December 03, 2016, 11:41:51 PM
1. A few degrees of rotation of RO toward 90 deg. off from parallel with SL
(3 to 5 deg. ?)... is the optimal starting position for RO (in the same direction
it will rotate when RO's force is measured).
Not sure I understand your suggestion
Quote from: Floor on December 03, 2016, 11:41:51 PM
2. But also RO must hit it's stop at 90 deg. off from parallel to SLand no farther.
Are you recommending the output torque arm (RO) should stop at the center of the torque cycle? (see chart below)
If so, why?... other then it would be next to free for the
input torque arm to return to starting point
Quote from: Floor on December 03, 2016, 11:41:51 PM
A full 90 degs. of rotation will not be acheived.
Why not?
Quote from: Floor on December 03, 2016, 11:41:51 PM
3. Im not certain that the counter weight on the RO scale indicator as is.....
is giving the needed effect.
If it is, then,
when there are no magnetic force interactions Between RO and SL (one magnet removed ?)
the RO scale indicator will ballance (have no tendancy to rotate by gravity's pull at any
degree of it's rotation).
The counter weight was perfectly adjusted to create a zero gravity influence where ever the rotation arm is positioned. It was adjusted prior to bringing it in proximity of any ferromagnetic material or magnets.
Thanks
Luc
@ Gotoluc
QUOTE from Gotoluc
"Are you recommending the output torque arm (RO) should
stop at the center of the torque cycle? (see chart below)" END QUOTE
yes
QUOTE from Gotoluc
"If so, why?... other then it would be next to free for the
input torque arm to return to starting point
END QUOTE
No its just because it would be next to free for the input torque
arm to return to starting point. Thanks
.....................................................................
QUOTE from Gotoluc
"Not sure I understand your suggestion"
END QUOTE
In general, the maximum rotation motivating force is available
during the first part of the rotation.... this is not true during the
VERY FIRST FEW degrees of rotation away from exact parallel.
because
The rotation motivating forces toward clock wise rotation are in
balance with the rotation motivating forces toward counter clock
wise, when RO is exactly parallel to SL
This cw to ccw balance shifts greatly.... within a few degrees of
rotation from exact parallel.
While
The linear motivating force (which pushing SL away) is at its absolute
maximum potential when RO and SL are exactly parallel. This linear
force decreases substantially with a few degrees of rotation.
There is no need to do input against this absolute maximum, linear repelling
force, when the RO out doesn't give back its maximum until after
a few degrees of rotation from exact parallel.
thanks luc
best wishes
floor
Thanks for the clarification floor
I'll re-measure the approximate 75 degree of rotation available up to the 90 center to see how it effects the gain.
Luc
Mechanical work - which is one form of energy - is defined in basic terms as
Work = Force X Distance moved.
For a rotating object, we apply a torque to get it to move/rotate. Also, the distance moved = distance along a portion of a circle called an "arc", which = R x Theta (where the angle Theta is measured in radians= actually, unitless).
Then
Work = Force X Distance moved = Force x R x Theta = Torque x Theta, [/size]
So the work = mechanical energy = Torque x Theta, not just Torque alone.
I'm concerned that Theta has been left out in the analysis so far in this thread - and hope that Theta will be included in the future.
@gotoluc
Referring only to your videos 3 with the rectangular neos, I have always liked mechanical puzzles of weight and motion but this device I see is giving me a potential quandary.
You measured your reference data by putting your scale on the tip of each arm and lifting to record the measured "pull" weight at each increment.
But in your experiment the arm is being lifted by and from the center shaft via the length of one neo magnet so it has to fight against the full leverage of the arm, so the actual mechanical process of the experiment is not pulling the arm from the tip as you have tabulated.
Seems to me the base data should be taken at a point on the arm that starts at the shaft and goes not more then half the length of the neo magnet from the shaft since it is the shaft centered neo magnet's responding length that is turning the shaft that is lifting the arm.
What would your opinions be. So I am basically asking "Should the base data be taken at point 1 or 2 on the below drawing?", since for me the lift force required should be greater at point 1 then point 2. Or, am I blind to an obvious simplicity. I do not know for sure and maybe even if the data was taken at point 1, the final ratios would be the same and the final percentage outcome would also be the same.
By the way @gotoluc, your worksmanship is so fine and thanks for your always inquisitive and clear videos and works.
wattsup
Quote from: gotoluc on December 05, 2016, 02:30:47 AM
Thanks for the clarification floor
I'll re-measure the approximate 75 degree of rotation available up to the 90 center to see how it effects the gain.
Luc
Well, I did the test and the results are surprisingly the same 31% gain.
In the previous test 3 the output rotation arm (Ro) traveled 140 degrees and the results were also 31% gain.
See both test data below. First is test 4 and the second is test 3
The disengage in test 4 is unmeasurable (less the 5 grams)
Luc
Quote from: wattsup on December 05, 2016, 07:42:53 AM
@gotoluc
Referring only to your videos 3 with the rectangular neos, I have always liked mechanical puzzles of weight and motion but this device I see is giving me a potential quandary.
You measured your reference data by putting your scale on the tip of each arm and lifting to record the measured "pull" weight at each increment.
But in your experiment the arm is being lifted by and from the center shaft via the length of one neo magnet so it has to fight against the full leverage of the arm, so the actual mechanical process of the experiment is not pulling the arm from the tip as you have tabulated.
Seems to me the base data should be taken at a point on the arm that starts at the shaft and goes not more then half the length of the neo magnet from the shaft since it is the shaft centered neo magnet's responding length that is turning the shaft that is lifting the arm.
What would your opinions be. So I am basically asking "Should the base data be taken at point 1 or 2 on the below drawing?", since for me the lift force required should be greater at point 1 then point 2. Or, am I blind to an obvious simplicity. I do not know for sure and maybe even if the data was taken at point 1, the final ratios would be the same and the final percentage outcome would also be the same.
By the way @gotoluc, your worksmanship is so fine and thanks for your always inquisitive and clear videos and works.
wattsup
Hi wattsup
the reason for the distance on the arms is I originally built it to measure foot pound of torque.
To my knowledge this is the way to measure foot pound or in my newer tests foot grams.
Hope this helps?
Luc
Hello Gotoluc ,
I follow your work for many years now , and it's always a great pleasure to see your vidéos ...
Looking at your 3th vidéo for the TD réplication , I think there is a measure missing .
You've got 3 Step
1 - you engage the linéare arm ( it's the first data for the input work )
2 - you mesure the output torque ( it 's the only output work )
3 - you disengage the linéare arm ( it' the seconde data for the input work )
but
4 - you need to reset the position of the ouput arm for complete the cycle , i will be curious of the work it need ... This is for me a third data for the input work )
Cheers
SG
QUOTE from DrJones
"So the work = mechanical energy = Torque x Theta, not just Torque alone.
I'm concerned that Theta has been left out in the analysis so far in this thread -
and hope that Theta will be included in the future. "END QUOTE
Two questions
1. The conversion of torque to work is needed,
in order
to state the actions in terms of Joules of work. Correct ?
2. But that conversion to joules, will not change the RATIOS
of the measurements to each other, will it ?
thanks for being on board
floor
@Gotoluc
DrJones makes a good point of clarification.
The reasons for my usage of round levers (pulleys) and conversions
of degrees of rotation into the linear fall of the weights are probably
pretty clear at this point.
I stopped short of the conversion of grams into newton, averaging, and
calculations of joules.
But even, simply the degrees times weight of each set compared to each other
will still give the same ratios ? as their conversions to joules will to each other ???
I have asked DrJones this question ?
PS
Thanks for the additional data
floor
@Wattsup
QUOTE from Wattsup
"But in your experiment the arm is being lifted by and from the center shaft via
the length of one neo magnet so it has to fight against the full leverage of the
arm, so the actual mechanical process of the experiment is not pulling the arm
from the tip as you have tabulated. " END QUOTE
I'm guessing you have already realized that the lifting on the (rotating magnet)
indicator / lift arm is against the magnetic force between the RO magnet and the SL
magnet.
It takes a little while to grok the motions and interactions in the "TD" unit, and then
yet more time, for this to settle in. No worries though, after 2 years of the TD, I'm
still some times befuddled.
regards
floor
@Luc
some observations
Your build successfully demonstrates that the SL becomes nearly
free from the linear motivating forces between it and RO when
RO is at 90 from parallel to SL.
SL needs to be very far from RO, before RO will be nearly free
from rotation motivating forces, between it and SL.
also see the attached files.
your device needs further modifications and dialing in.
best wishes
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 07, 2016, 09:31:10 AM
Your build successfully demonstrates that the SL becomes nearly
free from the linear motivating forces between it and RO when
RO is at 90 from parallel to SL.
Yes, I agree!
Quote from: Floor on December 07, 2016, 09:31:10 AM
SL needs to be very far from RO, before RO will be nearly free
from rotation motivating forces, between it and SL.
True, the SL (sliding magnet) needs to be far away from RO (rotating magnet) to have zero influence.
The reason I cannot obtain measurements on my scale when disengaging the SL torque arm is because the arm is 12 inches long and was originally designed to measure foot pounds.
To get a scale reading on test 4 (disengage arm) I would have to reduce the SL arm length by half if not more to get the scale to register something.
I didn't feel it was necessary to modify the device at this point since I'm not seeing any advantages using the rectangular magnets over the ring magnets I originally tested and designed the device to measure.
I'm going to move on to testing other magnet configurations that produce more torque so it's best to keep thing as they are.
Hope that makes sense?
Quote from: Floor on December 07, 2016, 09:31:10 AM
also see the attached files.
your device needs further modifications and dialing in.
As for your great diagrams, thanks for taking the time to do them ... I agree to all points and have been aware of each scenario.
On the first one, I was aware of the potential problem, so right from the start I took great care in keeping the scale angle at 90 degrees of the SL and RO arms throughout their torque travel. So there should be no errors in the scale data provided to date.
The other issue which I also knew of, is true, the crankshaft will influence the linear scale readings of the SL input torque arm. However, since measurements are done in each directions (engage & disengage) there cannot be an advantage or gain from using a crankshaft mechanism since if it did we would of solved the energy problems some time back.
With this in mind I trust the method and measurement used to be a true reflection of input force. However, I do agree by using a crankshaft on the input arm I'm not getting a linear input torque measurement, so the charts I made are affected by this fact.
Hope this answers your concerns?
Please feel free or anyone else explain if I fail to understand something or have error in my logic.
Kind regards
Luc
@gotoluc
still on the same page.
I have to ask these questions, It's just part of the process (scientific).
I sure you get it. Your work is much appreciated.
regards
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 07, 2016, 07:32:31 PM
@gotoluc
still on the same page.
I have to ask these questions, It's just part of the process (scientific).
I sure you get it. Your work is much appreciated.
regards
floor
Great and thanks for asking these important questions which I could of explained in my video but I try to keep them as short as possible so I stick to important details.
I do understand these questions need to be asked to ensure we're on the right track and I appreciate answering them.
I hope more experimenters like Vidar, TK and so on are going to find things we haven't considered yet.
Could it be there's nothing else?
Come on guys, you know this shouldn't be so
Luc
Hi webby1
as you know I have always supplied input reset data which is deducted from the output gain.
Even with this input reset subtracted for the output gain I'm still left with a 30% torque gain.
I have come up with a rotating design which will have 2 to 4 alternating torque sequences which has no need to reset the output.
Each of these alternating output torque sequences will transfer the 30% gains in rotating flywheels.
The question now is, will this 30% output torque gain alternately transferred in each flywheel which will represents at most 40% of one revolution (per flywheel) be enough to keep each flywheel turning the 60% of the remaining revolution and may include a small counter force to go through as well?
I think it may but we never know till we try.
Most of the parts for the build will be in next week.
Stay tuned and please feel free to point out any other problem you find in the meanwhile.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2016, 08:14:29 AM
Are the 28 samples of the Torque arm 14 in one direction of rotation and 14 in the other? with the 60g being the start\end point?
The 28 sample test 3 output torque chart has
140 degrees of travel (not 14 inches) on the output torque arm with an average of 165 foot/grams of torque throughout that 140 degrees of travel.
Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2016, 08:14:29 AM
What I see from the data you have provided is only 3 columns,, engage, cost,,, disengage, cost,, torque arm out, output,, but am missing the 4th which is torque arm reset, cost.
I would have to make serious modifications to my test device to calculate the losses of the output torque arm to rotate the balance of the 220 degrees needed to bring the arm back to the reset point. So I decided to use that time to just build a device which can continue to rotate in case it does work.
My new design uses many parts I already have on hand so the cost of extra parts is just $25, so not a big loss if it doesn't work. Plus, once I have the device put together (even if it doesn't work) I'll be able to measure how much the balance of the rotation (reset) costs.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2016, 09:48:26 AM
Let me put it this way.
The full cycle is,
engage, CCW, cost 0.2778951388 J
torque arm, CCW, gain 0.7795415278 J
disengage, CW, cost 0.2622390746 J
torque arm, CW cost ??? ??
After disengage the torque arm needs to be put back into the position for engage to happen for the start of the next cycle.
Yes, I got it but I don't think this is a practical way of resetting it. I want the output torque to continue in the same direction and return to the beginning. Makes more sense to me to keep things in motion then to send it back in the opposite direction.
We'll see how it works out.
Luc
Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2016, 11:11:26 AM
Conservation of momentum is important and should be considered.
However,, with the testbed you had you could of simply pulled the Torque arm backwards (CW) and measured the force over the same distance while the other arm was in the disengaged position. This would then of provided the energy needed for the complete cycle regardless of how it is applied.
28 samples,, 14 samples :)
Yes I agree, I could make new torque arms which would need to be 3 inches or less to rotate 360 degrees. However, doing that causes other problems like the scale is going to have issues measuring the portion when the arm is close to hitting the aluminum slab and possibly other issues I can't immediately visualize.
Like I said, I rather not make drastic changes on this device for now. You'll have to wait a week or so to see what I can come up with on the next full rotation test device.
Luc
Hello everybody ,
This device remind me something you probably knows ...
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm
It was in 1998 ...
Keep the good work Gotoluc !
SG
Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2016, 01:39:08 PM
After you took your force readings did you use Mr. Hand to move the Torque arm back to the starting position?
Did you try doing that while the system was in the disengaged position?
If so,, how much did Mr. Hand do to move the arm?
See,, no changes are needed you only need to have the Torque arm start in the end position after it rotated, move the other arm into the disengaged position and then use your scale to move the Torque arm back to where it needs to be so you could measure the engage force again.
Okay webby1,
to please you I added the output arm reset (return) measurement data to test 4
Seems to still have an overage
Luc
Quote from: Sacregraal on December 08, 2016, 02:32:08 PM
Hello everybody ,
This device remind me something you probably knows ...
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm)
It was in 1998 ...
Keep the good work Gotoluc !
SG
Hi SG
thanks for your post.
Yes, I would think the effects are similar or related.
Please keep in mind this topic is for discussion of replications of floor's device.
floor's original topic would be the place to post this kind of information and general discussion of the effect.
Here is floor's original topic "Work from 2 magnets > 19%" which should be used for general discussions: http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/ (http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/)
Kind regards
Luc
Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2016, 03:55:18 PM
Thanks Luc,
Rounded numbers :)
Yes, that's because the scale works in 5 gram increments.
Not ideal for fine measurements but gives a general idea.
We'll get down to finer measurements in the next build if needed.
Luc
I wonder if the cam effect on the slide is masking the real data.
Wouldn't it be better to collect the data from the exact movement of the magnets over the entire rotation and slide distance and then determine where the best gain occures?
The cam introduces a non linear input measurement against a linear output measurement. This is problemmatic when measuring the already non linear magnetic field.
Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2016, 07:21:50 PM
IIRC I found that when disengaging happens,, that there is an advantage to stepping that while the RO (?) is still turning.As you are pulling the magnet away you can set it up so that you expend a constant force to do so,, and while you are expending more energy the RO will continue to speed up due to it still seeing a torque. You have that window around the 80-90-80 where the removal cost is comparatively low so it is easy to set the rate of change up.
Good idea!... I'll keep it in mind for the new build
Quote from: lumen on December 08, 2016, 10:45:54 PM
I wonder if the cam effect on the slide is masking the real data.
This has just been covered some posts back: http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496936/#msg496936 (http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496936/#msg496936)
"the crankshaft will influence the linear scale readings of the SL input torque arm. However, since measurements are done in each directions (engage & disengage) there cannot be an advantage or gain from using a crankshaft mechanism since if it did we would of solved the energy problems some time back."
Quote from: lumen on December 08, 2016, 10:45:54 PM
Wouldn't it be better to collect the data from the exact movement of the magnets over the entire rotation and slide distance and then determine where the best gain occures?
The cam introduces a non linear input measurement against a linear output measurement. This is problemmatic when measuring the already non linear magnetic field.
This was (in the most part) a device already built and used for something else. I modified it to do what it does. The crankshaft was already there, which I decided to use to engage and disengage the sliding magnet and added a torque arm to it.
It's good enough as a preliminary test bed.
In my next test device build (which the output will able to rotate) I won't be using a crankshaft for this action.
Luc
Though... I'm not saying the cam is a bad idea, in fact it adds an interesting effect in that it can leverage the higher forces when it's needed and yet during extraction at mid rotation where there is zero force, there is no effect.
I hope to be getting back to do a bit more testing myself.
Keep on it maybe something will come of all this.
Quote from: lumen on December 09, 2016, 11:52:25 PM
Though... I'm not saying the cam is a bad idea, in fact it adds an interesting effect in that it can leverage the higher forces when it's needed and yet during extraction at mid rotation where there is zero force, there is no effect.
I hope to be getting back to do a bit more testing myself.
Keep on it maybe something will come of all this.
Thanks for clearing up what you had in mind when you wrote your post.
We'll see how it will turn out.
I would rather build another test device rather then modifying the first one to further test other possibilities. So if for some reason the 2nd device gets worse, I can always go back to the first one to try to understand what makes the difference.
Yes, I do hope something comes of it.
Luc
Hi floor and everyone,
My research continues even though I haven't posted for a few weeks!
I've made an update video for all to see the tests I'm doing before the full rotary version build so I know which magnet geometry I'll be using.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQjp1ysvlOQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQjp1ysvlOQ)
Luc
Quote from: Floor on December 05, 2016, 08:38:42 PM
QUOTE from DrJones
"So the work = mechanical energy = Torque x Theta, not just Torque alone.
I'm concerned that Theta has been left out in the analysis so far in this thread -
and hope that Theta will be included in the future. "END QUOTE
Two questions
1. The conversion of torque to work is needed,
in order
to state the actions in terms of Joules of work. Correct ?
2. But that conversion to joules, will not change the RATIOS
of the measurements to each other, will it ?
thanks for being on board
floor
Nice work Luc. I haven't really been following along closely but I just wanted to throw this in:
Let me underscore this point, and put it another way:
Luc's data seem to be showing that t2 (output torque) is greater than t1 (input torque). But torque isn't energy or work, even though they have the same units. Torque is a vector whereas energy is a scalar, and torque is the rotational analog of force. The energy (or work) in Joules associated with a torque is given by E = (torque x angular displacement), where torque is in Newton-meters and angular displacement is in radians. So a torque of 1 N-m applied for a full rotation requires an energy (work) of 2pi Joules.
So to answer Floor's question, yes, it is possible to have t2 > t1 but still have E2 <= E1 if the torque t2 acts over a smaller angle than t1.
I can't tell from Luc's data whether you are taking this into account.
Thanks TK,
I'm glad you're looking into this.
Unfortunately (as you may know) I have no schooling, so we have a certain communication incompatibility when technical terms are used. However, I'll do what I can to provide any details you may need but keep in mind (when dealing with me) best to use plain words, no math equations or symbols.
I do appreciate your input and hopefully floor can answer your question.
Kind regards
Luc
Hi Luc,.
you need a labour surplus. Power surplus is not so important. Enclose is the labour surplus. Only the power is not enough.
Lota
Excellent work Luc! I love the idea you have for how to harness the apparent extra energy. As you demonstrated in the video there is a neutral spot just away from the magnet. With your shielding moving into and out of that neutral spot you should be able to harness the extra force. I appreciate the way you approach these kind of ideas. Your methods of analyzing what is really happening are a big help to the rest of us that are trying to follow along.
Thanks,
Carroll
For those interested here is a link about the neutral zone. I am sure Luc already knows about this from seeing his video.
http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm
Carroll
Quote from: lota on December 30, 2016, 04:44:08 AM[/size]Hi Luc,.you need a labour surplus. Power surplus is not so important. Enclose is the labour surplus. Only the power is not enough.Lota
Hi Lota,
It is not clear what you are trying to say.
Are you saying without continuous movement or rotation there is no power?
If so, I agree.
My test device is not made to measure power at this time. Those tests will come in the future rotation device.
All I'm doing now is trying to find the most efficient magnet geometry.
Since the beginning of my tests this is the first time I'm measuring such a great improvement.
Glad you to see an excellent builder like you is looking at this.
Looking forward to see your build
Luc
Quote from: citfta on December 30, 2016, 08:50:00 AM
Excellent work Luc! I love the idea you have for how to harness the apparent extra energy. As you demonstrated in the video there is a neutral spot just away from the magnet. With your shielding moving into and out of that neutral spot you should be able to harness the extra force. I appreciate the way you approach these kind of ideas. Your methods of analyzing what is really happening are a big help to the rest of us that are trying to follow along.
Thanks,
Carroll
Thanks for your input and support Carroll
Luc
Hello Luc,
that is wrong. I mean: work in must be greater than work out.Not the strength. I'm building a machine. A combination of gap power and this magnetic system to a generator. I'm thinking, how do I get a continuous rotation. Gap-Power is for linear drive to the magnet.
Gap-power has a new video
http://gap-power.com/
lota
Quote from: gotoluc on December 30, 2016, 10:08:53 AM
Hi Lota,
It is not clear what you are trying to say.
Are you saying without continuous movement or rotation there is no power?
If so, I agree.
My test device is not made to measure power at this time. Those tests will come in the future rotation device.
Actually, torque is a kind of "power", except that instead of acting across a time period (like Watts acting over seconds to give Joules of energy) it acts across angular displacement (torque acting over radians to give Joules of energy).
No, you don't need to show continuous rotation to demonstrate power or even overunity. Although it would do, if it did! If you can show an _energy_ surplus during part of a cycle, even if it gets eaten up by mechanical losses in another part of the cycle, you still may be able to show OU without continuous rotation. And you would have a target to aim at: further reduce the losses in the lossy part of the cycle!
Quote
All I'm doing now is trying to find the most efficient magnet geometry.
Since the beginning of my tests this is the first time I'm measuring such a great improvement.
Glad you to see an excellent builder like you is looking at this.
Looking forward to see your build
Luc
Thanks for your input and support Carroll
Luc
Great!
As long as you realize what lota, DRJones, and I are trying to point out about the difference between torque and energy (work), since it is possible to have an increase in torque without having an increase in energy. ;)
Quote from: lota on December 30, 2016, 02:12:35 PM
I mean: work in must be greater than work out.Not the strength.
Humm :-\ ... if work
in is
greater then work out, how do you achieve OU?
Quote from: lota on December 30, 2016, 02:12:35 PM
I'm building a machine. A combination of gap power and this magnetic system to a generator. I'm thinking, how do I get a continuous rotation. Gap-Power is for linear drive to the magnet.
Ah, Gap-Power of Art Porter. He is a very good and generous man. I went to his home about 2 month ago. We looked at his devices and he let me bring back his first device (aluminum table) which I temporarily modified to test floor's research.
He has also given us an extra coil and magnet set of his latest device used in the video you mentioned.
It's true that you can use magnet in conjunction with electromagnets to more then double a electromagnet magnetic field strength. However, what is not apparent to many experimenters at first (including me till a few years back) is the counter electromagnetic field (CEMF) also doubles in strength which bring you right back to normal electromagnet behavior and is always under unity.
I know for sure as I've tried to beat this for years without any success.
The effect of CEMF was very apparent when I built a super build of my "Mostly Magnet Motor"
The bottom line is, as soon as you turn on a coil (no matter how short the on time or multiple pulses used) if there's a moving magnetic field no matter how powerful your magnets are, you're dead at that point.
Here is a shortcut to understanding the device and the end results: http://overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg420188/#msg420188 (http://overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg420188/#msg420188)
Regards
Luc
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 30, 2016, 04:58:57 PM
Actually, torque is a kind of "power", except that instead of acting across a time period (like Watts acting over seconds to give Joules of energy) it acts across angular displacement (torque acting over radians to give Joules of energy).
No, you don't need to show continuous rotation to demonstrate power or even overunity. Although it would do, if it did! If you can show an _energy_ surplus during part of a cycle, even if it gets eaten up by mechanical losses in another part of the cycle, you still may be able to show OU without continuous rotation. And you would have a target to aim at: further reduce the losses in the lossy part of the cycle!
Thanks TK for trying to clear the miscommunication.
I do know that continuous rotation is not needed to demonstrate OU. That was not what I was trying to communicate.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 30, 2016, 04:58:57 PM
As long as you realize what lota, DRJones, and I are trying to point out about the difference between torque and energy (work), since it is possible to have an increase in torque without having an increase in energy. ;)
Yes, I also know and agree that an increase in torque does not mean an increase in work. I'm not aware that I have been demonstrating or indicating this anywhere!... if you do see it somewhere, please let me know so I can correctly explain or correct it.
Thanks for your help
Luc
Hello Luc,
It's nice that you talked to Art Potter. A friend of mine is building and testing its solid stat machine. We will see what he can find out. I would like to test this project and this https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Kedron_EDEN_Project.ppt (https://ssl.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.de%2F%3Fgws_rd%3Dssl%23q%3DKedron_EDEN_Project.ppt).When I'm done, I'll show it.
I wish all a healthy and prosperous new year.
Lota
Quote from: gotoluc on December 30, 2016, 08:58:44 PM
Humm :-\ ... if work in is greater then work out, how do you achieve OU?
Ah, Gap-Power of Art Porter. He is a very good and generous man. I went to his home about 2 month ago. We looked at his devices and he let me bring back his first device (aluminum table) which I temporarily modified to test floor's research.
He has also given us an extra coil and magnet set of his latest device used in the video you mentioned.
It's true that you can use magnet in conjunction with electromagnets to more then double a electromagnet magnetic field strength. However, what is not apparent to many experimenters at first (including me till a few years back) is the counter electromagnetic field (CEMF) also doubles in strength which bring you right back to normal electromagnet behavior and is always under unity.
I know for sure as I've tried to beat this for years without any success.
The effect of CEMF was very apparent when I built a super build of my "Mostly Magnet Motor"
The bottom line is, as soon as you turn on a coil (no matter how short the on time or multiple pulses used) if there's a moving magnetic field no matter how powerful your magnets are, you're dead at that point.
Here is a shortcut to understanding the device and the end results: http://overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg420188/#msg420188 (http://overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg420188/#msg420188)
Regards
Luc
Look at this "Flux Gate Ladder" below:
@Gotoluc
Nice work / video, thanks
floor
I looked at Gotoluc videos, which are very impressive,
except I would like to see the calculation based on work, and not on torque.
Its fairly easy to do, I think, by multiplying force by the length of the arch
of his apparatus.
Thanks telecom
QUOTE from telecom
"I looked at Gotoluc videos, which are very impressive,
except I would like to see the calculation based on work, and not on torque.
Its fairly easy to do, I think, by multiplying force by the length of the arch
of his apparatus."
END QUOTE
@ TELECOM
If you would please give us a presentation in detail,
of a prescription for / procedure for making those measurements
and a
clear and direct explanation of the math (how to) integrate the force
over distance of magnets interacting (with examples).
This would be most appreciated.
Also if this is possible, could you present this in the topic below ?
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/
best wishes
floor
Quote from: gotoluc on December 30, 2016, 08:58:44 PM[/font]Humm :-\ ... if work in is greater then work out, how do you achieve OU?Ah, Gap-Power of Art Porter. He is a very good and generous man. I went to his home about 2 month ago. We looked at his devices and he let me bring back his first device (aluminum table) which I temporarily modified to test floor's research. He has also given us an extra coil and magnet set of his latest device used in the video you mentioned.It's true that you can use magnet in conjunction with electromagnets to more then double a electromagnet magnetic field strength. However, what is not apparent to many experimenters at first (including me till a few years back) is the counter electromagnetic field (CEMF) also doubles in strength which bring you right back to normal electromagnet behavior and is always under unity.I know for sure as I've tried to beat this for years without any success.The effect of CEMF was very apparent when I built a super build of my "Mostly Magnet Motor"The bottom line is, as soon as you turn on a coil (no matter how short the on time or multiple pulses used) if there's a moving magnetic field no matter how powerful your magnets are, you're dead at that point.Here is a shortcut to understanding the device and the end results: http://overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg420188/#msg420188 (http://overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg420188/#msg420188)RegardsLuc
[/font]
I would not agree with that in all detail. Art did tests too, and over a longer period he would have noticed, whether the lead battery recgarge was only recovering or not. IMHO the special thing is the frontal approaching. In Attraction the fluxes of to magnets link, but in repulsion they siege oneanother, allowing the lorentz force of the secondary field (lenz drag) to act its natural orientation, that is 90deg sideways, which is why there is repulsion drag in rotational byepassing.We talked about that. Hang a wire horizontally in the air, with a dc current. Approch magnet. Wire will go up, 90 deg from approaching direction. Accummulate all wires... Well, however, that was my impression.
Here is an update and results on my idea of using metal shielding pulled in and out between the magnet rings to allow the remaining 220 degrees to rotate through to reset the device.
The test also includes floor's idea of using diametrically magnetized magnets (instead of metal) as shielding to do the same.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMqBISjwieY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMqBISjwieY)
Tomorrow I'll post another video demonstration of a completely different design which combines part of floor's most recent video demo and my idea of using it which resets every cycle.
Stay tuned
Luc
As promised, here is the link to a video demo of a completely new design which resets at every cycles.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUlDMY1iE5A
@floor, if you would prefer I start a new topic on this device please let me know.
Regards
Luc
Very nice and interesting video.
Thanks Luc!
Carroll
Very interesting device an results.
But did you measure the average of the pull in the 11mm range?
Quote from: dieter on February 09, 2017, 04:39:55 PM
did you measure the average of the pull in the 11mm range?
Yes I did, it doesn't vary much. The low is around 520 grams and high around 565 grams.
Luc
That's amazing!
Hi Luc,
the actual gain , I think, is 2 times higher than you calculated because
your output goes back and forth during the cycle, so the total distance
is 22 mm by 540 grams = 11880 gram x mm
Considering that the input is 3700 gram x mm per cycle,
you have a gain of 3.
@GoToLuc
very nice work
thanks
floor
Quote from: telecom on February 09, 2017, 07:21:16 PM
Hi Luc,
the actual gain , I think, is 2 times higher than you calculated because
your output goes back and forth during the cycle, so the total distance
is 22 mm by 540 grams = 11880 gram x mm
Hi telecom,
It would be great if there was twice the movement. However, I don't see that.
I made a video just for you to count them.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBaeJD38HI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBaeJD38HI)
Regards
Luc
Quote from: dieter on February 10, 2017, 11:40:17 AM
What is still a question is how the 11mm push is measured over that distance, with the wheels' magnet aligned in the center, or with it passing by.
Since the device is very dynamic the only way I could measure it was to do each step at a time. So to answer your question quickly, the 11mm stroke is measured once the rotating magnet is centered with it.
Luc
Then I would suggest to measure the push with each measurement step of the rotation, that was 5mm, maybe try to do finer steps due to the peaks.
Quote from: gotoluc on February 10, 2017, 09:35:58 AM
Hi telecom,
It would be great if there was twice the movement. However, I don't see that.
I made a video just for you to count them.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBaeJD38HI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBaeJD38HI)
Regards
Luc
Ok, I guess it was a wishful thinking on my end!
In this case you probably need to calculate the work balance for the linear movement to come to the initial position.
Regards
If you do a replication please do compare output-POWER and input-POWER (and not FORCE or WORK)
See: http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg499715/#msg499715 (http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg499715/#msg499715) (concerning POWER versus WORK, TIME is of the essence)
FORCE
WORK = FORCE * DISTANCE
POWER = WORK over TIME
Also see: http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg499638/#msg499638 (http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg499638/#msg499638) (concerning a magnetic shield, if you plan one in your replication; note, a magnet is also a "known material")
Greetings, Conrad
That really would complicate measurements to level that may not be possible since if the 11mm magnet is allowed to move while the rotating magnet is moving in its first 55mm of travel the rotating magnet force needed to pull in goes down as the 11mm magnet moves. And once the 11mm magnet has reached it's 5.5mm center the rotating magnet requires 0 grams to move through.
A very complex measurement setup would be needed to probably find it all comes to the same.
The way I did it (in steps) measures all maximums. By holding down the 11mm magnet while the rotating magnet moves in, the rotating magnet needs the most pull force to pull it in the first 55mm and the opposite happens once I release the 11mm magnet and hold it down now the rotating needs maximum force to be pulled out of the remaining 55mm of travel.
Hope you understand
Luc
Quote from: telecom on February 10, 2017, 01:10:45 PM
In this case you probably need to calculate the work balance for the linear movement to come to the initial position.
That's the beauty of this design, there is no work "balance" needed for the next position (cycle)... as the fist cycle goes through the next cycle is right there and needs exactly the same as the first cycle.
Luc
Quote from: conradelektro on February 10, 2017, 01:19:10 PM
If you do a replication please do compare output-POWER and input-POWER (and not FORCE or WORK)
See: http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg499715/#msg499715 (http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg499715/#msg499715) (concerning POWER versus WORK, TIME is of the essence)
FORCE
WORK = FORCE * DISTANCE
POWER = WORK over TIME
Greetings, Conrad
Dear Conrad,
Please reply to the simple question
(in bold) of this post:
Quote from: gotoluc on February 10, 2017, 10:44:40 AM
Dear Conrad,
Lets look at a test device which can test your distance time beliefs.
Test device parts needed:
A DC electric motor which has a flywheel attached to its shaft and use of photo switch to turn the motor on and off.
First test:
We attach a scale to the outer circumference of the flywheel and adjust the current to the motor so it can pull 34 grams.
Then we adjust the photo switch to power the motor 110 mm distance of the flywheel outer circumference.
We note of the RPM in this condition.
Second test:
We attach a scale to the outer circumference of the flywheel and adjust the current to the motor so it can pull 538 grams.
Then we adjust the photo switch to power the motor 11 mm distance of the flywheel outer circumference.
We note of the RPM in this condition.
If your belief is correct, the RPM should be greater on the first test compered to the second test, correct?
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on February 10, 2017, 01:28:36 PM
That's the beauty of this design, there is no work "balance" needed for the next position (cycle)... as the fist cycle goes through the next cycle is right there and needs exactly the same as the first cycle.
Luc
So, to return the linear stage to the initial position will take the same work, and the linear stage will generate the same work?
Approximately 1.5 times more than input?
How about to slap a rudimentary crankshaft together, using the 11mm push over leverage to turn the wheel? Would probably be less timeconsuming than all measurements an defendings ^^
Quote from: telecom on February 10, 2017, 02:12:30 PM
So, to return the linear stage to the initial position will take the same work, and the linear stage will generate the same work?
Approximately 1.5 times more than input?
You don't need to return the linear stage to the initial position. The rotor magnet alternate N-S-N-S which creates the back and forth linear action which give 11mm linear force (538 grams) in each direction.
No rest needed.Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on February 10, 2017, 01:38:16 PM
Dear Conrad,
Please reply to the simple question (in bold) of this post:
If your belief is correct, the RPM should be greater on the first test compered to the second test, correct?[/size]
Luc,
it is not a simple question and I have no simple answer. I have not studied physics (only mathematics and law) therefore I would have to read up about flywheels in my physics text books. This would take hours which I am not prepared to put in today.
The quick answer: I do not see the connection between a flywheel and your machine. A flywheel is continuous movement. Your machine has two movements, a continuous turning movement (like a flywheel, if you want to see that probably false analogy) and an intermittent reciprocal movement.
Very important and constantly overlooked fact: your sledge also pauses during its movement (cycle, reciprocal movement). And during the pauses it does not do work.
Like a LED that is driven intermittently, whose average light output is less than a constantly driven LED (with the same Voltage and Amperage, this is what dimming is all about), your sledge outputs less energy than thought if the pauses are taken into consideration. (And exactly there I see no continuous fly wheel).
So, please forgive me that I do not want to study fly wheels at the moment. Your fly wheel example might have the answer "yes", but there is no Konnex to your machine
Just think for a moment, it is important how long work is done. Only when knowing how long a certain work is done one knows its power output (energy).
I have said more than often: POWER is WORK over TIME. If there is no time, there is no power (when the sledge pauses). A power company sells Watt-Hours and not Watt. You have to get the difference between Watt and Watt-Hours (between Work and Power or Energy). Which in your case is the difference between Gram or Gram-Hours. Or, if we would do the conversion from Gram to Joule, it is the difference between Joule and Joule-Seconds (or Joule-Hours if you want).
This is not my opinion, this is a fact. Everybody would complain if his work would not be paid by the hour. It matters very much how many hours you do your work. The average power output of your work is less (per hour) if you drink coffee for 15 minutes every hour (a pause of 15 minutes every hour). Your power output will be 25% less. All employers know that simple fact. All power companies know that it is important how long you switch on your loads.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: dieter on February 10, 2017, 02:28:20 PM
How about to slap a rudimentary crankshaft together, using the 11mm push over leverage to turn the wheel? Would probably be less timeconsuming than all measurements an defendings ^^
Yes, it's looking that way now :P
I was thinking of building a Neo magnet version next before trying a self loop these weak ceramic magnets.
If there is a gain then it may have more potential of working then a ceramic version.
Luc
Conrad, I'm trying to be serious without to hurt you, that turns out to be a dilemma. See that's the diffrence between employed and selfemployed. Work does not mean to pretend to do something until 17h. But to deliver a quantitively precise service, like in "job done", regardless of the hour. I can't believe you studied Maths and then fail to add 1+1. Maybe disagreement is an easy way to get into a discussion, but that would be a psychological issue.
Luc, not neccessarily. Neos have such a low volume that it appears as if their long range is weaker than with eg. ceramics (which isn't the case), only when you replace them by Neos of same volume, but then friction losses may rise to an amount that such a light construction can hardly withstand. It looks good atm, and 200g excess should be much more than enough, if the cranking losses are kept low.
Quote from: dieter on February 10, 2017, 03:39:16 PM
Conrad, I'm trying to be serious without to hurt you, that turns out to be a dilemma. See that's the diffrence between employed and selfemployed. Work does not mean to pretend to do something until 17h. But to deliver a quantitively precise service, like in "job done", regardless of the hour. I can't believe you studied Maths and then fail to add 1+1. Maybe disagreement is an easy way to get into a discussion, but that would be a psychological issue.
Come on now, self employed or employed. Of course my real life work-pause example was a Metapher.
I quit writing about Joule and Joule-Seconds because it goes by your head, which is fine with me.
You have won, you have exhausted me and therefore you are right (in your world).
Yes, you have hurt me. But not with your remark about my mathematics. You have hurt me with your lack of insight which makes the OU forums such frightful places. Nobody wants to learn and the OU-fans want everybody to unlearn simple facts.
It is only personal insults now (and I am also doing the insults, why not, I have a temper, eat it, go to hell).
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad, I take it you agree with me?
Your understanding of "Work" is that of Ron in the IT Crowd, but that is not what physics means by the term. You were wrong and seemingly unable to face it. To understand that must hurt, but it may turn you into a cooperative kind of forum user.
Same thing hapens to me too, sometimes, btw. Nobody is perfect and that ain't a shame.
This is already getting off topic again, sorry. Well the "what is work anyway" thing has some relation.
Quote from: dieter on February 10, 2017, 04:05:25 PM
Conrad, I take it you agree with me?
Your understanding of "Work" is that of Ron in the IT Crowd, but that is not what physics means by the term. You were wrong and seemingly unable to face it. To understand that must hurt, but it may turn you into a cooperative kind of forum user.
Same thing hapens to me too, sometimes, btw. Nobody is perfect and that ain't a shame.
This is already getting off topic again, sorry. Well the "what is work anyway" thing has some relation.
Dieter,
please read my posts. Yes, I made an error with WORK yesterday evening. But since then I know:
WORK = FORCE * DISTANCE (and that is the right formula as you know and as I know now, so please do not get stuck on this, you are a sneaky person holding a corrected error against me).
I learned what WORK is, but you do not want to learn what POWER (or energy) is.
In order to calculate POWER you need TIME. And you seem to be too thick to get that.
But as I said, I do not want to loose any more time with you. Please stop writing about me, you deliberately tell lies about what I write. You deliberately deny that I corrected an error. I do not like this and it upsets me. You are not a person whom one should converse with.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: gotoluc on February 10, 2017, 03:31:29 PM
Yes, it's looking that way now :P
I was thinking of building a Neo magnet version next before trying a self loop these weak ceramic magnets.
If there is a gain then it may have more potential of working then a ceramic version.
Luc
Looking forward for the video - this is the most remarkable design I've seen in years!
Conrad, I feel no harm for you and wish you all the luck that makes you happy. kr
And Pulleys, Strings, oneway clutches sounds good. Maybe you could even use a simple hook that grabs a spoke, using leverage to sync with the 11mm vs wheel circumference / 12.
Having seen and understanding that a sideways push generates a better force (for the lack of no OU words), some thoughts come to mind.
1 - We can construct this in a rotating fashion. Luc already uses a wheel on top, now all we need is a wheel on the bottom, and the wheels need to have some timing mechanism. The top wheel will let the bottom wheel rotate, and if all goes well, with a surplus. If the bottom wheel is an e-bike wheel, it can generate power (any other power generating tool will work as well)
2 - for other people on this forum who have build a pulse motor and have it laying around: You need to mount your magnets rotated 90 degrees, similar to how Luc uses the magnets. Is there someone willing to build this? Should not be to hard to build, as long as your timing is right. Maybe it works that way as well.
A " face cam " and pivoted arm would be the simplest approach! ;)
Cheers Graham.
Any news on this one?
Yesterday I found an antique sewing machine on a yard, "Singer 1", no electrics, beautiful btw., with a foot pedal driving a flywheel, which would be perfect for something like this.
Even though the design appears to have a gain it's a very small one because of the magnet size.
I think we should consider this first design as a concept verification.
I also think OU devices need to be large at first so not to overlook things.
With this said I'm thinking the output needs to travel more distance and have much more pull or push force.
To do this it's going to need magnets that have more surface area.
I've ordered 12 of these for the next experiment: http://www.ebay.com/itm/322408983857 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/322408983857)
So the version 2 test device will use these 2" x 6" magnets. They be turned by a low rpm DC motor in order to calculate input Watts.
There should be a formula to convert the back and forth output into Watts.
If you want to help please find the formula to do so.
Regards
Luc
I think, first you should add springs to the 11mm push/pull to compensate / nullify the losses you will otherwise get due to accelleration of mass. Springs of the right strength, so it becomes a pendulum, synched with the wheels rotation.
Mass in motion doesn't require energy, only to brake, accellerate or redirect it will require energy, in outer space without gravity and air, of course.
So, this goes over my head and personally I would rather try to build that cranking mechanism than to find and understand a formula for the conversion of this output into eg. joules. And I wouldn't trust the formula anyway, esp. when found on wikipedia :)
About size I found out, you may also just downscale friction, instead of upscaling the model. Bicycle wheels have pretty good friction and stability features already, in relation to their size.
For tiny models with eg. 1 foot diam. rotor I prefer Needle bearings, actually hardened steel nails, so the contact area is never nore than like 1/50mm2.
Anyhow, with stronger magnets you may very well see an even more obvious net gain.
Humm, pendulum... I was also thinking of a pendulum instead of the wheel since only 2 magnets are needed to make the output go back and forth.
It should also be an easier mechanism to redirect the output back to a pendulum.
Luc
@gotoluc
The difficulty with a pendulum is the same magnet orientation
passes over again on each back swing.
....................................
When using big ceramic magnets, you might still be able to use
a bicycle rim if you support it with 4 rolling bearings / wheels
2 on each side, near to where it passes over the stationary magnet.
.......................................
If you have any thing specific you would like to run by me
fell free to pm me.
........................................
Your latest device kicks a___!
regards
floor
Quote from: Floor on February 16, 2017, 10:46:39 AM
The difficulty with a pendulum is the same magnet orientation
passes over again on each back swing.
I think the pendulum arc could be long enough to accommodate 2 magnets (one of each pole)
Video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqaf9a9hJAg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqaf9a9hJAg)
Quote from: Floor on February 16, 2017, 10:46:39 AM
When using big ceramic magnets, you might still be able to use
a bicycle rim if you support it with 4 rolling bearings / wheels
2 on each side, near to where it passes over the stationary magnet.
Yes
Quote from: Floor on February 16, 2017, 10:46:39 AM
If you have any thing specific you would like to run by me
fell free to pm me.
........................................
Your latest device kicks a___!
regards
floor
Thanks for the support and glad you enjoy the new design ;)
I'm contemplating on a series (cascade effect) for the next build.
If there is a gain, it should be obvious then
Regards
Luc
@Gotoluc
Quote from: gotoluc on February 16, 2017, 12:03:47 PM
I think the pendulum arc could be long enough to accommodate 2 magnets (one of each pole)
I didn't see it clearly.
Now I got it. Thanks for the short and sweet video.
@Gotoluc
Some observations.
When the approach of the rotating magnet is very precisely
at right angles (in all planes) to the sliding magnet....
there is practically no work done against magnetic forces...
for rotator to approach / exit.
................................................
Even the very slight off angle / changing angle ....of approach by the rotating
magnet (which is due to the curvature of the bicycle rim) is having a significant
effect.
Using longer magnets will, increase the work input, more than
one might expect due to this feature. (longer magnets will have a more dramatic
change in distance from / angle to .... the sliding magnet... at a given curvature of
their approach line (I think)....
.....................................................
The greater the diameter of the rotating rim.... the more nearly,
the rotating magnet's approach to the sliding magnet....
comes toward being a straight on / 180 degree (2 x 90 degree) approach.
There will be a diminishing return in the benefits of a longer pendulum
(from pivot point to magnets). At some particular length, any further increase
in length... will give almost no decrease in the force needed to approach
/ escape.
The more perfect the alignments the more nearly one will approach
a zero for the input. There is a limit... even the magnets / their fields are
not be perfect.
Also, at close proximity "magnetic domain flipping" within the magnets
might have some undesirable effect. ..... But when 2 magnetic poles approach
2 other magnetic poles... these effect might completely self cancel.
regards
floor
Quote from: Floor on February 16, 2017, 01:32:23 PM
@Gotoluc
Some observations.
When the approach of the rotating magnet is very precisely
at right angles (in all planes) to the sliding magnet....
there is practically no work done against magnetic forces...
for rotator to approach / exit.
................................................
Even the very slight off angle / changing angle ....of approach by the rotating
magnet (which is due to the curvature of the bicycle rim) is having a significant
effect.
Using longer magnets will, increase the work input, more than
one might expect due to this feature. (longer magnets will have a more dramatic
change in distance from / angle to .... the sliding magnet... at a given curvature of
their approach line (I think)....
.....................................................
The greater the diameter of the rotating rim.... the more nearly,
the rotating magnet's approach to the sliding magnet....
comes toward being a straight on / 180 degree (2 x 90 degree) approach.
Yes, I'm aware of these problems and why I was thinking of using a Pendulum instead of the wheel.
Quote from: Floor on February 16, 2017, 01:32:23 PM
There will be a diminishing return in the benefits of a longer pendulum
(from pivot point to magnets). At some particular length, any further increase
in length... will give almost no decrease in the force needed to approach
/ escape.
The more perfect the alignments the more nearly one will approach
a zero for the input. There is a limit... even the magnets / their fields are
not be perfect.
Also, at close proximity "magnetic domain flipping" within the magnets
might have some undesirable effect. ..... But when 2 magnetic poles approach
2 other magnetic poles... these effect might completely self cancel.
Today I was reconsidering the use of a Pendulum because of the long ark needed to keep the magnet gap small.
I concluded to just use a sliding bearing for the 2 alternating magnets. This way both input and output are linear motions which should make it simpler to loop.
Thanks for all your considerations and sharing.
Luc
Quote from: Floor on February 16, 2017, 12:38:36 PM
@Gotoluc
I didn't see it clearly.
Now I got it. Thanks for the short and sweet video.
That's why I make videos and encourage everyone to make them, as in seconds one can understand what may take many posts or even pages to describe.
Luc
Thinking about it, the forces that are in 90 degrees to the wheel cannot stop or brake the wheel, but only add some friction.
So what does the 11m magnet do when it's not in a rail? In what direction does it move?
Quote from: dieter on February 16, 2017, 09:01:01 PM
So what does the 11m magnet do when it's not in a rail? In what direction does it move?
Sorry, I don't understand your question
Luc
Well if you would just put that magnet (that is pushed 11mm) on the table, without any fixation, then turn the wheel over it like you did. In which direction would the magnet move?
Quote from: dieter on February 17, 2017, 12:44:15 AM
Well if you would just put that magnet (that is pushed 11mm) on the table, without any fixation, then turn the wheel over it like you did. In which direction would the magnet move?
This is not shomething I can test without making modifications. please take 2 magnets and do some tests.
Regards
Luc
Probably I missed it, but I'm still a bit confused about how the polar axes are arranged. On the wheel up and down, and on the one on the track from left to right of the wheel?
Goto page 6 post 85 and look at the video demo
The magnets are in standard magnetization
Luc
So I take it "this dimension" refers to the polar axis, thanks.
@Dieter
1. The magnets used are polar on the broad faces.
2. See this video @
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5an8hd_rtangsld2_tech
regards
Thanks Floor (Alex?),
I see now. Interesting channel and I was in search for a tube substitute already (always bad to google a google substitute^^), so thanks2x.
@Dieter
I'm not Alex ?... my username on DailyMotion.com is .... seethisvid
floor
Yeah, sorry, I must have mixed up something.
Quote from: gotoluc on February 16, 2017, 12:03:47 PM
I'm contemplating on a series (cascade effect) for the next build.
If there is a gain, it should be obvious then
Hi Luc,
When you say "a series build" do you mean you will link multiply systems together? Just curious.
I am looking forward to your next build.
I am developing a mechanism to capture the "stop and go" motion of your setup and use it in a "two bicycle wheel" setup,
since continuous rotation ultimately is going to be the most efficient. A linear sliding setup should work as well. One way
to capture the motion of the magnets is to create cam followers to follow two separate tracks to create the "stop and go" motion.
Keep up the great work!
Alex
Hi Alex,
Thanks for your interest.
Quote from: Cairun on February 21, 2017, 09:19:24 AM
When you say "a series build" do you mean you will link multiply systems together? Just curious.
Yes, they are linked to multiply in a way.
The idea is, if there's a gain, then the first unit can be calibrated to use its gain to operate the polarity flip slider of the
second unit. That way all the output of the second unit is free to use or to re-use to operate a 3rd unit and so on.
Each unit or stage should be able to have 50% more magnet surface area causing an exponential torque amplification as the stages are added.
This is the idea but at this point only a theory since it hasn't been built or tested.
Quote from: Cairun on February 21, 2017, 09:19:24 AM
I am developing a mechanism to capture the "stop and go" motion of your setup and use it in a "two bicycle wheel" setup,
since continuous rotation ultimately is going to be the most efficient. A linear sliding setup should work as well. One way
to capture the motion of the magnets is to create cam followers to follow two separate tracks to create the "stop and go" motion.
Glad to see someone working on this!
Regards
Luc
A little comic relief that just might floor you ,
I hope its not out of place.
.....................................
If one seeks proof of perpetual motion....
One need only to look to the length of men's arguments upon that subject. :)
........................
Conservation of momentum is the most critical aspect of most over unity designs .....
This is because ...
most designs, rely upon momentum as their primary energy source. ;)
..........................
Some say that
Playing with magnets is like a rocking chair, while
it gives a person something to do, it gets them no where !
further more
Magnets are dangerous ! If two or more are swallowed, their attraction
can pinch right through an organ !
I have even heard magnets referred to as "the devils junk" by some.
So ... my suggestions ares
don't play with the devils junk
and especially ......
never let the devil put his junk into your mouth.
floor
Quote from: gotoluc on February 21, 2017, 11:34:38 AM
Yes, they are linked to multiply in a way.
The idea is, if there's a gain, then the first unit can be calibrated to use its gain to operate the polarity flip slider of the second unit. That way all the output of the second unit is free to use or to re-use to operate a 3rd unit and so on.
Each unit or stage should be able to have 50% more magnet surface area causing an exponential torque amplification as the stages are added.
This is the idea but at this point only a theory since it hasn't been built or tested.
Luc and Floor,
Your cascade setup sounds very exciting. I hope it will work as expected.
Upon playing more with the ceramic magnets, I realized that continuous rotation may not be achievable with your setup.
The output magnet seems to only do positive work in the 11 mm stroke(maybe a tiny bit more than 11mm), and as it moves further than 11mm it enters into attraction mode which essentially creates a sticky spot. Unless I am setting up my magnets in the wrong way. Can you confirm this or let me know what I may be doing wrong?
I've completed my conceptual design on the "stop and go" mechanism, but I still need to figure out some of the mathematical relationships. I will post pictures or a video of the concept when I have it in a presentable form.
Regards,
Alex
Quote from: Cairun on February 22, 2017, 01:05:40 PM
Upon playing more with the ceramic magnets, I realized that continuous rotation may not be achievable with your setup.
The output magnet seems to only do positive work in the 11 mm stroke(maybe a tiny bit more than 11mm), and as it moves further than 11mm it enters into attraction mode which essentially creates a sticky spot. Unless I am setting up my magnets in the wrong way. Can you confirm this or let me know what I may be doing wrong?
Regards,
Alex
Hi Alex,
It is difficult to see what's different without seeing what you've built. Can you make a video so I can see what could be different.
Two things my device has is, the magnets on the wheel are alternating north south and the 11mm magnet has stops (wood blocks) to limit the 11mm magnet stroke so it does not get out of range.
Maybe watch the video again to see these limiter blocks.
Looking forward to seeing what you've built.
Luc
Luc,
Thanks for the quick reply. I did notice the alternating magnet pole arrangement (which is where the self re-set comes from), and the limiter blocks (which is where the 11 mm is coming from). I am trying to emulate your setup exactly. I guess my question is if you remove the limiter blocks, how much further will the slider magnet travel beyond the 11mm distance. Apparently, don't remove the limiter blocks just to answer my question. I will set something up tonight and make a video to clarify my question.
Regards,
Alex
The 11mm magnet can travel a little more then where I limited them but if its center goes past the side edge of the rotating magnet it won't flip back on its own when the next rotating magnet comes in. That's the main reason for the limiters.
Luc
Opening a latch while it is is under a large force
can use a lot of energy.
I stumbled on this video and wondered if anyone has heard about this device.
MTG (Magnetic Torque Generator)
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI2Fwb91PhI
As for my device, I should have a larger version to demonstrate late next week.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on February 22, 2017, 04:19:58 PM
The 11mm magnet can travel a little more then where I limited them but if its center goes past the side edge of the rotating magnet it won't flip back on its own when the next rotating magnet comes in. That's the main reason for the limiters.
Luc,
Below is the link to a video showing my build which is the same setup as yours except I turned the bicycle wheel into a slide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-BqcWUHmWY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-BqcWUHmWY&feature=youtu.be)
The video shows the sticky spot I've mentioned in my previous post. This would not affect your linear reciprocating build. It only affects continuous rotation designs(example: mounting the magnets on 2 bicycle wheels instead of a bicycle wheel+slider setup as you've used in your video). I guess this renders the "stop and go" mechanism useless then. Anyway, I look forward to your next build.
Regards,
Alex
@Cairun
Nice video / device ! thanks
So far, my own attempts at a constantly rotating version
have not worked out.
Going with the full stop.... then... next action,
seems always to give the better results.
Conserving all of the energy of momentum would be nice
but doesn't have to happen... at all.
Our / "the free energy researcher's", obsession with continuous
rotation has been (perhaps)... one of the primary reasons that these
interactions have been over looked in the past / for so long.
I'm not phrasing some new law here (heaven forbid) !
but
Hard right angle interactions, stop actions and reciprocation .... works....
circular hasn't ! Curious don't you think ?
...
...
A longer stroke in the output will have a more extreme drop off in
force... near the end of that stroke. That force while it may otherwise be "wasted"
would also be difficult to practically utilize, (staying near to the average force is good)
................
I think maybe, a longer INPUT stroke might be the first thing to try to expand.
i.e yet longer magnets in what is already their longest dimension
or two magnets end to end
...............
Next.... maybe a wider "output magnet" width ? .....and cascading
just my take on it
regards
floor
Floor,
Thank you!
Quote
Going with the full stop.... then... next action,
seems always to give the better results.
Conserving all of the energy of momentum would be nice
but doesn't have to happen... at all.
I agree, the "full stop....then...next action" is necessary.
And conservation of all momentum is not necessary to achieve OU, although it would be nice if that were possible.
Quote
Our / "the free energy researcher's", obsession with continuous
rotation has been (perhaps)... one of the primary reasons that these
interactions have been over looked in the past / for so long.
Perhaps, that's true. I am always too eager to reach the end goal and overlook certain subtle but important details.
Quote
A longer stroke in the output will have a more extreme drop off in
force... near the end of that stroke. That force while it may otherwise be "wasted"
would also be difficult to practically utilize, (staying near to the average force is good)
I agree, and the extreme drop off ultimately turns into a sticky spot. Finding the limits of the stroke is essential in maximizing the output. Although, a 60% excess of output to input is pretty good too.
Quote
I think maybe, a longer INPUT stroke might be the first thing to try to expand.
i.e yet longer magnets in what is already their longest dimension
or two magnets end to end
...............
Next.... maybe a wider "output magnet" width ? .....and cascading
I agree, increasing the both magnets' length will increase the output force. And increasing the output magnet's width will increase the length of the output stroke. Although, I think input work required may increase as well. However I don't know if the increase in input vs output will proportional.
Additionally, The sticky spot is irrelevant now that I've had some time to think about it.
Stepping through the operational sequence I see now that the input magnet will move away before the output magnet moves beyond the 11mm of stroke. A huge brain fart on my part... I will continue to develop my "stop and go" mechanism.
Best regards,
Alex
Quote from: Cairun on February 23, 2017, 12:02:35 AM
Luc,
Below is the link to a video showing my build which is the same setup as yours except I turned the bicycle wheel into a slide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-BqcWUHmWY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-BqcWUHmWY&feature=youtu.be)
The video shows the sticky spot I've mentioned in my previous post. This would not affect your linear reciprocating build. It only affects continuous rotation designs(example: mounting the magnets on 2 bicycle wheels instead of a bicycle wheel+slider setup as you've used in your video). I guess this renders the "stop and go" mechanism useless then. Anyway, I look forward to your next build.
Regards,
Alex
Nice and clean build Alex. Thanks for making a video.
I understand now what you're trying to do which won't work that way as you've concluded.
You don't want to use the (11mm) magnet to exit because of a sticky spot in that dimension. Use the other magnet to exit since it has next to no sticky spot.
It would take too much writing for me to describe how I envision it all working, so you're going to have to wait for my next video which should demonstrate more of how I plan to solve this.
Hopefully I'll have something next week
Great work!
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on February 23, 2017, 06:22:04 PM
Nice and clean build Alex. Thanks for making a video.
I understand now what you're trying to do which won't work that way as you've concluded.
You don't want to use the (11mm) magnet to exit because of a sticky spot in that dimension. Use the other magnet to exit since it has next to no sticky spot.
It would take too much writing for me to describe how I envision it all working, so you're going to have to wait for my next video which should demonstrate more of how I plan to solve this.
Hopefully I'll have something next week
Great work!
Luc
Luc,
Thanks. The build took longer than I expected, but I am glad you like it.
I look forward to your next video.
And, thanks for the pointers.
I did, after thinking through the operational sequence, realize the sticky spot is irrelevant and will not pose any problems.
Best regards,
Alex
Quote from: Cairun on February 23, 2017, 07:07:40 PM
I did, after thinking through the operational sequence, realize the sticky spot is irrelevant and will not pose any problems.
Best regards,
Alex
Great!... then you're on the right track... pun intended!
You may want to have a look at the Energetic Forum where Chet (user ramset) has started a topic and user Allen Bergess is very enthusiastic and has many ideas: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20699-mechanical-magnetic-torque-amplifier.html
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on February 23, 2017, 07:22:14 PM
Great!... then you're on the right track... pun intended!
You may want to have a look at the Energetic Forum where Chet (user ramset) has started a topic and user Allen Bergess is very enthusiastic and has many ideas: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20699-mechanical-magnetic-torque-amplifier.html
Regards
Luc
Luc,
I just registered a account with EnergeticForum.com.
I read through the post but couldn't understand some of the ideas since I couldn't open any pictures/attachments.
It looks like one of the ideas is very similar to the "stop and go" mechanism I am developing.
I will keep an eye out for this forum in the future.
thanks for the heads up.
Regards,
Alex
Sorry, I forgot about if you're not a member you can't see uploaded pictures.
They also can be slow to approve new members. Hopefully it won't be your case.
Luc
Luc
sorry to interrupt here, I did try to ask Allen to discuss this [must be a member to view at THAT forum]
he is also a member here [I think Flame wars caused some issues in the past here??]
as you know I started the topic there [Aaron's forum] with your permission so more eyes could see the open source work......
just some clarity ,as you know I have no interest in the politics or memberships of these forums ,just to learn and share for maximum input ... or contributions from the community.
maybe Allen will choose to discuss this and perhaps start a topic here where viewing of images is not attached to
membership ?
sorry for the interruption here.
I did try...?
with respect and gratitude
Chet K
:)
Hi Alex (cairun)
Did you receive my message?
Please reply
Luc
Hi all,
This is the conceptual design of the "stop and go" mechanism designed for Luc's version of Floor's Twist Drive idea specifically for use with a continuous rotation setup.
As you can see the output gear stops and stays in position for a brief moment, but the planetary gear rotates continuously(it is attached to the input gear which means the input gear is in continuous rotation). I still need to try and figure out the mathematical relationship. The 2 attached images show the front view and back view of the mechanism as well as labeling for the individual components.
The following link shows the mechanism in motion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lqlbY4v38s&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lqlbY4v38s&feature=youtu.be)
Imagine 2 bicycle wheels with the input magnets mounted on the rim of one and the output magnets mounted on the rim of the other bicycle wheel.
Each wheel connected to the output gear of 2 separate "stop and go" mechanisms. Set the wheels at 90 deg from each other.
Couple the input gears of both mechanisms(have to time it exactly right) via gears, belts, U-joint linkages etc.
Mount a flywheel to the input gear to preserve any excess momentum.
And the result should be a self runner.
This mechanism should capture all momentum and not waste any. Even the braking of the wheels(due to stop and move motion) should transfer into usable momentum.
As for the linear reciprocating setup, I will draw something up to show the "track follower" mechanism that I've mentioned, later on.
Regards,
Alex
@GotoLuc/ Cairun
Fantastic work !
@ All readers
Some observations / features.....
To assist one in understanding the magnet interplay.
The force to slide the input magnet is almost completely neutralized by the
balance between attraction / repulsion ..... when the input magnet's
line of travel is along the center of the face of the output magnet.
That center is the distance to the edges of the output magnet's face,
as measured at a right angle to the center line of the input magnets travel.
That center line from pole to pole of the input magnet is square to the
center line from pole to poles of the output magnet...in two planes.
and also...The faces of the two magnets are square to one another in all planes.
...
Note...The greater the distance from those edges of the face of the output magnet
to its center.....the easier it is to come to a zero sliding input force (by balance). e.g The
broader the face of the input magnet...the easier it is to arrive at that force balance.
(A less perfect travel path / alignment is needed by the input magnet)
When input motion is along the center of the output magnet face
.... this changes both the input and the output work... as compared to
when input is made near to the edge of the output magnet.
I assume this also changes the final or over all, work in to work out ratio ?.
If the input magnet's travel is near to the edge of the face of the output
magnet.... the input force and work, is increased.
But also the output disproportionately increases ?
..............................................
In Luc's current design...
During both, the input stroke and the reset stroke, there is a mutual interaction
between the output magnet (A) and the input / reset magnets
as a combined field (B). Th
The nature of that relation ship is affected by which position of the output magnet
is in...e.g. cocked or fired. These relationships affect the input and reset strokes.
More on that.... later / maybe.
..........................................
Note... Use of the phrase "pumping action" in regard to the input magnet, would
be some what misleading... as there is a motion then hold position action
to its motion. Please find the two video links below. regards ... floor
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5d7hdv_lucs-1_tech
hlttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5d7ip9_lucs-2_tech
Hi Alex,
Thanks for sharing your very interesting mechanical gear timing system.
I'm always amazed as just about any timing and motion can be accomplished with gears.
Glad your here as you're a great asset to the research.
Regards
Luc
Thanks floor for your new test details[/size] and[/size] video demos
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on February 25, 2017, 05:16:50 PM
Hi Alex,
Thanks for sharing your very interesting mechanical gear timing system.
I'm always amazed as just about any timing and motion can be accomplished with gears.
Glad your here as you're a great asset to the research.
Regards
Luc
Luc,
You are very welcome!
I am glad to be a part of the research.
I hope my contributions can help to further this research.
Regards,
Alex
Quote from: Floor on February 25, 2017, 02:22:38 PM
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5d7hdv_lucs-1_tech (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5d7hdv_lucs-1_tech)
hlttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5d7ip9_lucs-2_tech
Floor,
Your setup in the the second video is very interesting and got me thinking.
If your put another set of output magnets with south and north poles reversed
on the left side of the input magnet then you would have 2 output strokes and get 2x the output.
Furthermore, once the input magnet is pulled out, the output magnets would self reset since they
are in attraction to each other.
Now to get 4x the output, you can put another input magnet on top of the the current input magnet
with south and north poles reversed. This serves to double the output stroke force.
This is very exciting. I wish I can test it now but I can't since I will be working away from home for the next month.
Regards,
Alex
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%] [/size]
@Cairon
Thanks, and see you when we do.
@GotoLuc
Simple is best... short of continuous rotation
and simpler !
lift a 4 pound seldge hammer head ... in 2 foot increments...
by lowering a 1/4 pound weight 6 inches....untill the
1/4 pound weight has lowered a total of 30 inches and
the 4 pound weight is ten feet in the air ???
or whatever the maximum ratio can come out to ... via a single
cascade.
Do it your own way ... I hope this might be some contribution.
.... in pdf form.
floor
Floor and Luc,
Even though I can't conduct experiments while away from home.
I will continue to design a self runner using Luc's setup(in a linear reciprocating desing using 2 slides).
I hope to finish design and order all purchased parts before I get back home
so I can start the build immediately when I do get back.
Regards,
Alex
Great Alex
Maybe all I'll do is put the 2 slides together to test the results using the 6" ceramic magnets and wait to see your mechanical design.
Thanks for staying on it.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on February 27, 2017, 11:10:29 AM
Great Alex
Maybe all I'll do is put the 2 slides together to test the results using the 6" ceramic magnets and wait to see your mechanical design.
Thanks for staying on it.
Luc
Luc,
That sounds good. I will try to get the mechanical design out as soon as I can.
But, I will be working 72 hours work weeks so it might take a while since I will have little spare time.
Have you tried to line up multiple output magnets(your cascade idea)to increase output stroke?
If that increases output stroke without dramatically increasing inpu work, then I would like to incorporate that into my design.
Regards,
Alex
Quote from: Cairun on February 27, 2017, 01:32:44 PM
Luc,
That sounds good. I will try to get the mechanical design out as soon as I can.
But, I will be working 72 hours work weeks so it might take a while since I will have little spare time.
Have you tried to line up multiple output magnets(your cascade idea)to increase output stroke?
If that increases output stroke without dramatically increasing inpu work, then I would like to incorporate that into my design.
Regards,
Alex
Hi Alex,
Just an hour ago I came up with a new simple design that will give us more test data on the performance of a 6 inch output stoke multiplied 4 times.
It's simple enough that I should be able to build it and have it ready to test in 2 to 3 days.
From those test results we should be able to decide the direction we want to take.
So just stay focused on your work as there's nothing to do till then.
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on February 27, 2017, 04:09:53 PM
Hi Alex,
Just an hour ago I came up with a new simple design that will give us more test data on the performance of a 6 inch output stoke multiplied 4 times.
It's simple enough that I should be able to build it and have it ready to test in 2 to 3 days.
From those test results we should be able to decide the direction we want to take.
So just stay focused on your work as there's nothing to do till then.
Thanks
Luc
Luc,
A design with a 6 in output stroke and 4x the force?
That sounds exciting!
I will pause on the design on my part for now, then.
I look forward to the result of your tests.
Regards,
Alex
Below are some png files / drawings that illustrate the alignments / actions of
Luc's "mechanical magnet torque amplifier".
please find the attached
CascadeStageiMatching 1.png file and the
CascadeStageiMatching 2.png file
regards
floor
Notes
1.
I have not (above) illustrated all details of the magnet configurations.
Luc's last video measured a specific arrangement.. which may be /
probably is actually some what different than the (2) above illustrations.
Those illustrations are to give the (in general) of that configuration.
2. a device utilizing large force over a short distance.... can have excessive
energy wasted... due to small amounts of slack / play / slop at the junctions
of its mechanical / moving parts.
3. Translating a large force / short stroke into a long stroke / lower force
before any one way clutch (which will have play before it engages) will
be more efficient than the other way around.
4. There is no energy lost in the trading of greater force at less distance for
less force but greater distance... e.g. using a large diameter output pulley.
(above illustrations)
5. The diameter of the round gear beneath the rack gear (above illustrations)
should cause it to rotate by 90 degrees during the magnet stroke.
5. The eccentric pulley (illustrated above) anticipates only a 90 degree rotation.
6. that output pulley might as well be eccentric ..... even if out put force is
MOSTLY constant over the distance traveled.... but not if output force is
very constant over the entire distance traveled .
best wishes
floor
Luc,
You have said in one of your posts, that you don't have sufficient knowledge of mechanics to correctly calculate the energy efficiency of your devices. You have also asked for help in this regard. Here is the assistance you were looking for; see the attached files.
I have integrated the work, both the input and the output, and calculated the efficiency of the device. If your measurement data is correct, then the coefficient of performance is COP=161.3%.
This would be quite impressive, and I could design a generator on this idea, but I have doubts about the validity of your results. For example when you are taking the first measurement, then the slider magnet is completely under the wheel, is that correct? Then as you pull the rotor magnet over the slider there is a repulsive force between them. So far so good. Then when the slider is released and shifted to the farthest position from the rotor, then you continue measuring the force required to pull the rotor away from the bottom position. What does not make sense to me is that you are now measuring an attractive force between the magnets, even though I would expect a repulsive force to persist.
A repulsive force existed between the magnets until the rotor covered the slider, and the repulsive force made the slider move away. This same repulsive force supposed to still exist (even though smaller) while you are pulling the rotor away from above the slider. Which means that during the second half of the measurement the magnets supposed to perform work, and you supposed to push the rotor (not pull) during the measurement.
Can you please cast some light on the exact procedure of measurement, polarities of magnets and preferably dimensions as well? Thanks. Great workmanship!
@Nonlinear
Gotoluc has several videos up on various of these magnet interactions.
Watching the set of these short videos should give you a comfortable
understanding of the interactions. It can take some time to gain familiarity
with the configurations.
There are 7 videos here by "seethisvid" that give some explanations of the
magnet's polar alignments, motions and resulting force vectors.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5an8hd_rtangsld2_tech
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5d7hdv_lucs-1_tech
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5d7ip9_lucs-2_tech
Also there are some drawings and a pdf file, upon the previous pages of this topic
floor
@Nonlinear
I don't think Luc has stated the dimensions of the magnets he is using,
but I have assumed... that they are the same as those I have been using ?
see this link below
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg489791/#msg489791
Thanks for the conversions to newtons / joules
best wishes
floor
do the work at the bench and you will see there is more than what were told to look at.
You can build a rotor that has a cam that moves the force of the magnet attached to move in and out,
But it will find balance, inject an offset to that balance , at the proper time.
You won't get free power, but you can get it down to the point where it is virtually free.
Just what I've seen so far.
artv
Quote from: Nonlinear on March 01, 2017, 08:52:04 AM
Luc,
You have said in one of your posts, that you don't have sufficient knowledge of mechanics to correctly calculate the energy efficiency of your devices. You have also asked for help in this regard. Here is the assistance you were looking for; see the attached files.
I have integrated the work, both the input and the output, and calculated the efficiency of the device. If your measurement data is correct, then the coefficient of performance is COP=161.3%.
This would be quite impressive, and I could design a generator on this idea, but I have doubts about the validity of your results. For example when you are taking the first measurement, then the slider magnet is completely under the wheel, is that correct? Then as you pull the rotor magnet over the slider there is a repulsive force between them. So far so good. Then when the slider is released and shifted to the farthest position from the rotor, then you continue measuring the force required to pull the rotor away from the bottom position. What does not make sense to me is that you are now measuring an attractive force between the magnets, even though I would expect a repulsive force to persist.
A repulsive force existed between the magnets until the rotor covered the slider, and the repulsive force made the slider move away. This same repulsive force supposed to still exist (even though smaller) while you are pulling the rotor away from above the slider. Which means that during the second half of the measurement the magnets supposed to perform work, and you supposed to push the rotor (not pull) during the measurement.
Can you please cast some light on the exact procedure of measurement, polarities of magnets and preferably dimensions as well? Thanks. Great workmanship!
Thanks Nonlinear for taking the time to verify my calculation and present your data.
I made a video for you in hopes of making the process clearer to understand .
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6sbIgr2L8A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6sbIgr2L8A)
Please feel free to ask questions if needed
Regards
Luc
@Gotoluc
Great work Luc !
I am setting up to do measurements / replication on you last demo.
This will be of an output stroke only.
If... I also do the input stroke measurements, they will have to be
of a straight on (parallel) stroke, and one magnet only (input)....
to one magnet only (output)
@all readers
These experiments are being done on the fly. (not perfect)
My measurement process will be only an approximation of
Luc's process (not identical).
please find the attached PNG file
regards
Thanks Luc for the video, now your results make more sense.
There are several mistakes in your approach and measurements, which may be very well the cause for the detection of COP>1. The biggest mistake is to judge the efficiency of a device based on average forces. That is completely unscientific, and it can very easily mislead you. The total work must be measured and calculated, like in my spreadsheet.
The second mistake is ignoring the role of measurement errors. A measurement is never 100% accurate, there is always some error in it. The experimenter must be aware of the expected maximum error margin of his measurements, and disclose it together with the measurement results. Without this, the data can not be taken seriously. For example the best resolution of your scale is 5g which is extremely low and produces a very large error if you are measuring forces in the range of 0 to 100g. When you are measuring 100g then the uncertainty of the measured result is 10g, which is 10%. The correct way of showing your measurement result is: 100g +-5g, or with other words, the real force could be anything from 100-5=95g to 100+5=105g, the error margin is 105-95=10g, which is 10% of the measured value of 100g. Therefore if you find a COP=1.1 with such large error margin of measurement, then your measurements are pretty much useless to prove anything. If you are measuring even less than 100g, like in some of your measurement series measuring 5, 10, 20g etc. then your error margin is so huge that the data is of no value to prove anything. If your scale has a low resolution, then build a device that requires the measurement of about 100 times larger forces than the 5g resolution. If this is not practical, then use a scale that has got sufficient resolution and accuracy to produce around 1% (or less) measurement error.
The third mistake is not to measure the complete cycle of movement. For example webby1 was trying to convince you few pages back that you have to measure the 4th part of the cycle as well, in one of your earlier devices. He finally succeeded in this effort in post:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496971/#msg496971 and you provided the data in:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496974/#msg496974
After you have measured this 4th part of the cycle and taken it into account, then your (still incorrect) averaging calculations showed only 10% of excess work, which can very easily attributed to the other mistakes already mentioned.
In this case of rotary device this is not as critical as in the previous devices, but I would still recommend you to measure the complete cycle. Meaning, two rotary magnets pass in sequence above the slider. Please also measure the output force as well at least 10 times, like after each 1mm movement.
I was trying to get a manual feel of the forces in your device using two neodymium magnets of 4x2x1cm, which I don't recommend to anyone. These magnets are just too powerful, and if one doesn't have very strong fingers, they can also harm you! But, I have got no ceramic magnets of rectangular shape right now, so can not do the safe version.
Anyway, keep up the good work, and if the COP is still higher than say 1.2 even after fixing these mistakes, then it should be possible to build at least a perpetuum mobile using this magnet arrangement. If the COP would be really 1.6 like in your measurements, then the machine should be able to generate useful output power as well, besides just running itself.
Thanks Floor for the links and the drawing.
Here is a sneak peek of the v2.0 Magnet Torque Amplifier device before it's all assembled and unable to see the internal design mechanism.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMVES42VbzA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMVES42VbzA)
Test results should come in the next couple of days
Stay tuned
Luc
Here is the device assembled
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsEbX8yJ91I
I'll need to bolt this down for testing :o
Luc
@All readers
The below png file contains the results of a
quasi replication of GotoLuc's MagTorqAmp
(output only)
best wishes
floor
@GotoLuc
Awsome !
floor
@Nonlinear
If you have the time, I would like to
talk over / better understand your suggested
approach. Maybe in the topic
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/
regards
floor
@Luc,
Your latest build looks awesome.
Regards,
Alex
Luc Nice build , and thanks for showing the break down and explaining the poles positions.
artv
All right, so... useing A Cairon design-roary-stop-start input...this could get even more interesting.
@ GotoLuc
Important note
Now that you are using larger magnets, the forces involved may be great enough
that a personal injury could be serious ! Please consider designing and installing
some fool proof safety / locking mechanisms on your new device.
Safety first .... then have as much fun as humanly possible !
...............................................................................................
It looks like you may need lateral support / rollers like that which you were considering
in the bicycle rim device ?
very nice build.
regards
floor
Quote from: Nonlinear on March 03, 2017, 02:33:18 PM
Thanks Luc for the video, now your results make more sense.
There are several mistakes in your approach and measurements, which may be very well the cause for the detection of COP>1. The biggest mistake is to judge the efficiency of a device based on average forces. That is completely unscientific, and it can very easily mislead you. The total work must be measured and calculated, like in my spreadsheet.
The second mistake is ignoring the role of measurement errors. A measurement is never 100% accurate, there is always some error in it. The experimenter must be aware of the expected maximum error margin of his measurements, and disclose it together with the measurement results. Without this, the data can not be taken seriously. For example the best resolution of your scale is 5g which is extremely low and produces a very large error if you are measuring forces in the range of 0 to 100g. When you are measuring 100g then the uncertainty of the measured result is 10g, which is 10%. The correct way of showing your measurement result is: 100g +-5g, or with other words, the real force could be anything from 100-5=95g to 100+5=105g, the error margin is 105-95=10g, which is 10% of the measured value of 100g. Therefore if you find a COP=1.1 with such large error margin of measurement, then your measurements are pretty much useless to prove anything. If you are measuring even less than 100g, like in some of your measurement series measuring 5, 10, 20g etc. then your error margin is so huge that the data is of no value to prove anything. If your scale has a low resolution, then build a device that requires the measurement of about 100 times larger forces than the 5g resolution. If this is not practical, then use a scale that has got sufficient resolution and accuracy to produce around 1% (or less) measurement error.
The third mistake is not to measure the complete cycle of movement. For example webby1 was trying to convince you few pages back that you have to measure the 4th part of the cycle as well, in one of your earlier devices. He finally succeeded in this effort in post:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496971/#msg496971 (http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496971/#msg496971) and you provided the data in:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496974/#msg496974 (http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496974/#msg496974)
After you have measured this 4th part of the cycle and taken it into account, then your (still incorrect) averaging calculations showed only 10% of excess work, which can very easily attributed to the other mistakes already mentioned.
In this case of rotary device this is not as critical as in the previous devices, but I would still recommend you to measure the complete cycle. Meaning, two rotary magnets pass in sequence above the slider. Please also measure the output force as well at least 10 times, like after each 1mm movement.
I was trying to get a manual feel of the forces in your device using two neodymium magnets of 4x2x1cm, which I don't recommend to anyone. These magnets are just too powerful, and if one doesn't have very strong fingers, they can also harm you! But, I have got no ceramic magnets of rectangular shape right now, so can not do the safe version.
Anyway, keep up the good work, and if the COP is still higher than say 1.2 even after fixing these mistakes, then it should be possible to build at least a perpetuum mobile using this magnet arrangement. If the COP would be really 1.6 like in your measurements, then the machine should be able to generate useful output power as well, besides just running itself.
Thanks Floor for the links and the drawing.
Hi Nonlinear
Thanks for your post.
I've been aware of the scales 5 gram resolution limitation and agree it's not ideal for small measurements.
The errors % margin will be greatly reduced with the version 2 build as the scale will be in the Kg measurement ranges.
Lets see what these new numbers will show.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: Floor on March 04, 2017, 12:15:37 AM
If you have the time, I would like to talk over / better understand your suggested approach. Maybe in the topic
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/
I don't think it is a good idea to separate the discussion of measurement techniques from the experimental thread (here) where the action happens. There is a good chance that those who experiment and supposed to read and implement the suggestions will not find them. Like in this post:
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg499599/#msg499599
telecom has explained how to measure and correctly calculate the input and output work already on the 9th February. His suggestion was ignored and the averaging continued as if nothing happened. If you ignore good advice then why would anyone be willing to help?
Anyway, if you don't' understand telecom's explanation, then I can explain it again. What is it that you don't understand?
I would tend to agree with you Nonlinear. Better keep the measurement techniques of a replication in this topic.
Now, concerning telecom's advice "below"
"Re Gotoluc measurements:
work = force x distance
I would like Gotoluc to measure force for each segment of his input
and output dials, and multiply this force by the length of the segment.
Then add them together for the input and output.
This will give us input and output work.
The more segments he has, the more precise would be the calculations.
In fact, he already has everything in place, just needs to do the above
operations."
I do remember reading it and re-read but can't seem to understand or find what I have not provided.
So I guess you'll have to explain what I have not done.
BTW, your calculations came to the same as I had calculated, so again I fail to see what I forgot.
Kind regards
Luc
@Nonlinear
A request of / upon Telecom by floor
@
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg499531/#msg499531
Telecom's rseponce next day
@
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg499599/#msg499599
Have I given a correct interpretation of the basics of the process for calculating the
work in these magnet interactions here ........
@ http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg498005/#msg498005 ?
If so, and with your permission :) ..... then I will re post those three pages / files here ?
A COP of 161.2838 .... does this mean basically the same thing as 61.2838 % more out
than in ?
thanks
floor
Quote from: gotoluc on March 04, 2017, 04:54:03 PM
I do remember reading it and re-read but can't seem to understand or find what I have not provided.
I just popped in here without reading the entire thread.
Please give me some links to your work, in which you had summed the force*distance for the input and output of your system, so I can evaluate it.
If I notice anything you have omitted or any errors, I'll let you know.
Quote from: verpies on March 05, 2017, 06:31:39 AM
I just popped in here without reading the entire thread.
Please give me some links to your work, in which you had summed the force*distance for the input and output of your system, so I can evaluate it.
If I notice anything you have omitted or any errors, I'll let you know.
Hi verpies,
Nice to see you here.
The below videos (in order) relate to the around 60% over unity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUlDMY1iE5A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUlDMY1iE5A)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBaeJD38HI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBaeJD38HI)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6sbIgr2L8A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6sbIgr2L8A)
And the below videos are v 2.0 which is a Super build of the above
Just completed the build on Friday so no measurements yet.
I'll have to bolt down this beast to measure her ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMVES42VbzA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMVES42VbzA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsEbX8yJ91I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsEbX8yJ91I)
Regards
Luc
Nice build. Reminds me a bit of Teslas Earthquake machine tho ^^ Make sure to have a sledge hammer at hand during the test run, in case of any runaway /evac situation.
@ Nonlinear
Here in PDF (easy to down load / contemplate off line) form is
my responce to your postings.
Please find the attached file "MagnetForceIntegration.PDF"
Thanks for your input
best wishes
floor
@ all readers
The above PDF file is not a private message.
QuoteBTW, your calculations came to the same as I had calculated, so again I fail to see what I forgot.
Here is a parable: Joe and Fred have calculated the surface area of a gate that they want to paint, which is a square. They know how much paint is needed per square meter. So if they calculate the surface area of the gate then they will know how much paint they will have to buy, and how much that will cost. One side of the square is 2m long. Joe calculates the surface area as S=(2[m])^2=2^2[m^2]=4[m^2]. Fred prefers to calculate the same as S=2+2=4.
As you can see in this specific case the numerical result of both calculations are the same (4) and correct, but Fred is calculating it the wrong way. If the length of one side is not 2m but let's say 3m, then Joe will get a correct result as S=(3[m])^2=9[m^2], but Fred's result of S=3+3=6 will be wrong. The fact that two different methods of calculation give the same result for a specific case (or even for several specific cases) does not mean that both methods of calculation are equally valid for all possible cases.
QuoteI do remember reading it and re-read but can't seem to understand or find what I have not provided.
You have provided useful measurement data, and doing a great work on testing the energy balance of different magnet arrangements. I did not say that you did not do anything useful, or that you have not provided something essential. Your data already merits serious investigation (if true) and that is the reason I have chimed in and trying to help. Even if it finally turns out that there is no real COP>1 in these permanent magnet arrangements, the measurements are still of value if they are scientifically correct and sufficiently accurate. In such a case future experimenters can already know that it might not be the best idea to look for overunity in this area.
But both your method of setting the measurement points and the method of calculating the COP are not the most scientific and accurate, and therefore not very convincing for the scientifically minded. You can fix this with no extra effort, and obtain/present neat measurement results for the same cost and work spent. The correct approach will also be valid for any possible measurement point distribution.
QuoteSo I guess you'll have to explain what I have not done.
You have done it (calculated the COP), just not the right way, which was also suggested by telecom, but now I see that it has been nicely described even earlier on January 04 by Floor:
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg498005/#msg498005
If you read the explanations in the pdf that is attached below this post, you will see that in general case it is not wise to use uniform segment sizes. In the regions where the curvature of the force function that you are measuring is large, one supposed to use small displacement sizes. Where the curve is nearly straight line (nearly constant increase or decrease of force per same displacement) one can use larger displacement increments.
If the segment sizes are not uniform, then your method of simply averaging the forces, and ignoring the lengths of individual displacements will give a wrong final results. It is also wise to conform with the established scientific method of calculating the COP as the ratio of the output and input work (not average forces).
QuoteHave I given a correct interpretation of the basics of the process for calculating the
work in these magnet interactions here ........
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg498005/#msg498005 ?
Yes, except for the minor math error in this formula: Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2. First one must add the two forces together, and then divide the result by 2. Your version first divides Fi by 2 and then adds Fp to it, which gives a wrong result.
QuoteIf so, and with your permission ..... then I will re post those three pages / files here ?
This is your thread, you don't need my permission. It indeed makes sense to post everything relevant into this thread as well. Although I have also attached a similar pdf document to this message to clarify the calculation methods, yours is also useful, because it explains the subject in more layman terms and it may help those with less technical knowledge. If we want to implement the best method of COP calculation, then I (of someone else) will have to slightly modify the earlier posted spreadsheet as well (but the change is trivially simple).
QuoteA COP of 161.2838 .... does this mean basically the same thing as 61.2838 % more out than in ?
Yes, it does. Whatever you get above 100% is free excess energy.
QUOTE from Nonlinear
"Yes, except for the minor math error in this formula: Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct
in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2. First one must eadd together the two forces, and th results is
divided by 2. Your version first divided Fi by 2 and then adds Fp to it, which gives a wrong
result."
END QUOTE
OK
Average force = (peak force - initial force) / 2 ............ I see, previously .... I left out the parentheses.
Force applied = average force times displacement.
.........................................
.........................................
note also.... proof reading on the fly often misses errors
e.g. except for your minor math error
" Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2."
First one must eadd together the two forces, and th results is
divided by 2.
should read
(Pf - if)/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2.
First one must subtract the two forces, and the results is
divided by 2.
Corrections are duly noted and requested, welcomed,... this is, in part, why
the subject matter is in a public forum.
However please understand that this is NOT a conventional class room.
You will not be accorded a special status based upon any degrees.
I am neither a math wiz nor an expert in magnets nor physics.
But then neither do I have the kind of brain damage that some times
results from the traditional abuses in the course of academic conditioning.
(not that you do either, I don't know ?)
People on this forum, that are here to learn, are here to learn.....
what, where and why they want to learn .... not your or some other
specific curriculum.
This topic is not a competition, cooperation is the goal. Many trolls are very knowledgeable. If you become a disruption to the topic, no matter how cleverly you do so, the topic will become moderated. and posts simple deleted.
You can contribute, but just know that we don't need your "help".
Hopeing you can continue to stay involved, sincerely
floor
Quote from: Floor on March 05, 2017, 04:16:38 PM
note also.... proof reading on the fly often misses errors
e.g. except for your minor math error
" Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2."
First one must eadd together the two forces, and th results is
divided by 2.
should read
(Pf - if)/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2.
First one must subtract the two forces, and the results is
divided by 2.
What... what? I have made few typos in my last post, which have been corrected within few minutes of posting, but I certainly did not post anything like (Pf - if)/2=avf or Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2. Subtract the two forces? From where did you get this nonsense idea that it "should read" like a subtraction? It makes no sense at all.
QuoteYou will not be accorded a special status based upon any degrees.
I did not ask for any special status, and I don't respect any special status of anybody else here either. As long as it is correct and true what one posts, I respect it and appreciate it. But if something is incorrect, then I don't care if even the owner of this forum or God himself made the false statement, or made the error, it has to be corrected, and if I have time and interested enough I will do that.
QuotePeople on this forum, that are here to learn, are here to learn..... what, where and why they want to learn .... not your or some other specific curriculum.
Please don't speak in the name of other people who read this forum! The calculation methods that I have described are correct (anybody can verify that), and if you or anybody else here wants to keep the exclusive right to "teach the readers" some lousy methods of "doing science" and research, then that is very wrong. People have the right to know what is scientifically correct, and we should let everybody decide for himself which methods and explanations he prefers to learn and accept (if he didn't know them already). When I wrote that this is your thread, I didn't mean that therefore I consider you to be the almighty here. Only that you may politely direct the flow of discussion, but not that I or anybody else is obliged to obey your commands. You have no more authority here than I do; not even in this thread.
QuoteMany trolls are very knowledgeable. If you become a disruption to the topic, no matter how cleverly you do so, the topic will become moderated. and posts simple deleted.
Wow! I have offered truth and correct knowledge, and in return now I have been accused of being a troll! Now that is quite something! I am a disruption to the topic? Nice one! As far as I know only Stefan can moderate and delete posts. Why do you speak in his name? But even if you could do it, I would not care.
QuoteYou can contribute, but just know that we don't need your "help".
Perhaps you don't "need" my input for ego reasons, which is easy to remedy. Just simply ignore my posts. But intending to prevent other readers to read my posts by threatening with deleting my writings is outrageous.
I am not posting regularly on this forum because I have better things to do. In this case I have made an exception because Luc's latest measurements seemed promising, and wanted to make sure the results are not due to simple mistakes that are easy to correct. But now after seeing you egotistic reactions I realize that this may be a deliberate deception, which can only thrive on pseudoscience.
@Nonlinear
I did not say that you are a troll, I implied that you might be.
Luc's experiments / innovations are great and his own, I do not direct them.
Great.... Good to see you have some salt / passion.
Lets not fight, let us use your knowledge.
QUOTE
from Nonlinear
"What... what? I have made few typos in my last post, which have been corrected within few minutes of posting, but I certainly did not post anything like (Pf - if)/2=avf or Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2. Subtract the two forces? From where did you get this nonsense idea that it "should read" like a subtraction? It makes no sense at all. "
END QUOTE
See the files below "subtraction of force in sets.png"
..............................................................................
.............................................................................
The topic is moving away from Gotoluc's project, not what I wanted.
So lets move this "discussion" to the other topic ? @
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg496713/#msg496713
Like I originally suggested.
@GotoLuc
There are some other filesattached below, as well.
regards
floor
@gotoLuc
The "MeasPhy 10-5.PDF" file is posted in between the two PNG files above.
It would be really easy to miss that PDF file if I didn't mention it speciffically.
regards
floor
Here is the first test update of the Mechanical Magnet Torque Amplifier v2.0
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_fCow3qR4
Luc
A very impressive machine and remarkable craftsmanship!
HelloIt is an interesting machine.How is the input without the lamp?
Lota
Luc,
It is an interesting approach you've taken to measure the input vs output work. And, again, impressive work!
Do you plan to measure the input work and output work by measuring force over distance like you've done for your previous build?
I think that is still beneficial. I thought about ways to measure the input work and one way to do it is by attaching a string on the
outer diameter of the wheel and wrapping around the wheel then attach the string to your pull scale. This allows your to measure
in linear force over distance.
Regards,
Alex
Luc,
This is again nice workmanship, but the concept is wrong because it can not prove anything. You have yourself recognized that there is at least 40% loss in the 2 motors alone, and then we still didn't count the losses in the gear mechanism which will be a lot again, and the friction losses elsewhere in the machine. This is just a waste of effort really. With all this work and expense you could have made a purely mechanical feedback loop from the output to the input with much less loss.
All you need to do is attach a large enough flywheel to the shaft that will store energy, and then drive it with the slider. This can be done by using 2 ratchet mechanisms like the ones in a bicycle rare wheel hub. This way you can utilize and rectify the strokes in both directions. The flywheel can drive the rotor. Since the expected torque from the slider will be greater than the one of the rotor, the slider torque will need to be fitted to the rotor torque to be in the right proportion.
Quote from: telecom on March 07, 2017, 11:09:48 PM
A very impressive machine and remarkable craftsmanship!
Thanks telecom
Quote from: lota on March 08, 2017, 03:23:07 AM
HelloIt is an interesting machine.How is the input without the lamp?
Lota
Sorry lota, I don't understand your question.
Quote from: Cairun on March 08, 2017, 07:17:39 AM
It is an interesting approach you've taken to measure the input vs output work. And, again, impressive work!
Do you plan to measure the input work and output work by measuring force over distance like you've done for your previous build?
I think that is still beneficial. I thought about ways to measure the input work and one way to do it is by attaching a string on the
outer diameter of the wheel and wrapping around the wheel then attach the string to your pull scale. This allows your to measure
in linear force over distance.
Regards,
Alex
Thanks Alex
Yes, I will do force over distance measurement as well.
I agree! a string around the rotor would be a good way to measure distance and force at the same time.
Luc
Quote from: Nonlinear on March 08, 2017, 07:37:56 AM
Luc,
This is again nice workmanship, but the concept is wrong because it can not prove anything.
You have yourself recognized that there is at least 40% loss in the 2 motors alone, and then we still didn't count the losses in the gear mechanism which will be a lot again, and the friction losses elsewhere in the machine. This is just a waste of effort really. With all this work and expense you could have made a purely mechanical feedback loop from the output to the input with much less loss.
Thanks for your comment.
I don't agree that this won't prove anything. We will see.
As for wasted expense, the only cost was $20. for the gear head motor from a surplus salvage store.
The rest I had on hand, even all the 3/4 inch plywood used to build the device was salvaged and free.
You see, I live a very frugal life style, on a $100 a week, so I know not to waste.
Quote from: Nonlinear on March 08, 2017, 07:37:56 AM
All you need to do is attach a large enough flywheel to the shaft that will store energy, and then drive it with the slider. This can be done by using 2 ratchet mechanisms like the ones in a bicycle rare wheel hub. This way you can utilize and rectify the strokes in both directions. The flywheel can drive the rotor. Since the expected torque from the slider will be greater than the one of the rotor, the slider torque will need to be fitted to the rotor torque to be in the right proportion.
Don't underestimate what I know needs to be done to convert the mechanical output back to the input.
Some of what you suggest would be needed but it's far more complex then what you suggest!... since the rotor could not just freewheel.
Rotor and slider would have to be mechanically linked to keep the timing.
I'm sure Alex also knows this. As well, he and I know it would benefit to slow down the rotor once the magnets are in ideal position to the slider magnets to deliver maximum force stroke.
Regards
Luc
@ all readers
This latest addition to the magnets motion and measurements project,
is a detailed explanation of how to calculate the work done by a force that is
changing with distance. (like a magnetic force).
Please find the attached file "MagnetForceIntegration 2.PDF"
best wishes
floor
PS
Nice Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on March 08, 2017, 10:44:05 AM
I'm sure Alex also knows this. As well, he and I know it would benefit to slow down the rotor once the magnets are in ideal position to the slider magnets to deliver maximum force stroke.
Luc,
Yes, you are exactly right about this. In order to achieve maximum output the input magnet has to come to a complete stop and wait for the output magnet to finish its stroke before the input magnet can move again. And vise versa, the output magnet has to stop and wait for the input magnet to finish its stroke before it can move to achieve minimal input work. A cam and follower(or track and follower)setup should allow us to mechanically link the input and output to create a self runner. I will attempt to model something up to show what I am referring to.
Regards,
Alex
Quote from: Cairun on March 09, 2017, 12:09:47 AM
In order to achieve maximum output the input magnet has to come to a complete stop and wait for the output magnet to finish its stroke before the input magnet can move again. And vise versa, the output magnet has to stop and wait for the input magnet to finish its stroke before it can move to achieve minimal input work.
In a generator designed to optimally utilize all the available excess energy
at arbitrary speeds of rotation yes. One has to synchronize them and allow the slider to finish the complete stroke before the rotor is moved away. But if your aim is only to produce a closed loop as proof of concept and proof of excess energy, then one can accomplish the task in a simpler way. If there is really 60% excess energy, then the following device should be at least self running.
The proposed operation is this (referring to the earlier version where force measurements were done):
1) The stroke length of the slider was already about 10 times shorter than the travel length of the rotor magnet. If you allow the slider to deliver its work even faster say 10 times faster than the speed of the rotor magnet, then the freely rotating rotor will travel only about 1/100th distance of the stroke during the movement of the slider. This is negligible, and it nicely approximates a perfectly synchronized rotor-slider. It is also possible that a slower movement of the slider would be also satisfactory. Like for example just let both slider and rotor move at the same speed. In that case the rotor would travel 1/10th of the rotor's stroke distance while the slider completes its stroke. One can calculate how much efficiency gets lost this way and find an optimum, a compromise between practicality and ideal condition.
2) The synchronous operation can be guaranteed by using a toque brake on the shaft, and keeping the RPM of the rotor at sufficiently low level, so that the slider should be able to complete the stroke before the rotor travels a significant distance away from the synchronous position. The torque developed on the brake can be measured, just like the RPM, from which one can calculate the output power.
3) A large enough flywheel will absorb and smooth out any jerky movement, and contribute to the slow synchronous operation.
4) A timing latch could be utilized (similar to the one used in old pendulum clocks) to time and synchronize the release of the slider magnets at the right moments, only slightly before the rotor completely covers the slider magnet.
5) The linear bidirectional movement of the slider can be rectified and converted to unidirectional rotation using two bicycle hubs (or similar ratchet mechanism), one on each side. One on the left side drives the flywheel while moving forward, and the other on the right side drives it while moving backwards.
6) this way a continuous rotatory movement can be sustained, with an easy and handy way of measuring the output power. No need for accelerating and decelerating the output wheel, or stroke. But it would make sense to start designing such a machine only after precise reliable measurements prove the existence of at least 20-30% of excess energy. Anything below that would make it challenging to overcome the losses, and it would have no practical significance anyway.
Quote from: Cairun on March 09, 2017, 12:09:47 AM
Luc,
Yes, you are exactly right about this. In order to achieve maximum output the input magnet has to come to a complete stop and wait for the output magnet to finish its stroke before the input magnet can move again. And vise versa, the output magnet has to stop and wait for the input magnet to finish its stroke before it can move to achieve minimal input work. A cam and follower(or track and follower)setup should allow us to mechanically link the input and output to create a self runner. I will attempt to model something up to show what I am referring to.
Regards,
Alex
Hi Alex,
User name TinselKoala made a suggestion of using a Scotch Yoke (1st pic) to convert the linear output to rotary.
The problem with it is there's no rest time. However, I thought there could be a way to modify the Scotch Yoke to create a pause time and found a variation that does exactly that (2nd pic) Link to animation: http://www.mekanizmalar.com/uk012.html (http://www.mekanizmalar.com/uk012.html)
The same site also has an Indexing mechanism (3rd pic). Link to animation: http://www.mekanizmalar.com/four-slot-two-pin-geneva-mechanism.html (http://www.mekanizmalar.com/four-slot-two-pin-geneva-mechanism.html)
This mechanism may do what we need to turn the rotor in four segments of rotation, stop, lock and pause.
As it is my magnet rotor only has 2 sets of magnets but I could add a second set without too much work and expense to advantage of the 4 position of this indexing mechanism.
I like both of these mechanism instead of gears since I could cut them out of plywood with a router.
Food for thought
Luc
Hi Luc,
Great videos as always from you. I do have a suggestion. The Geneva drive is an ingenious device but needs to be built with very close tolerances to work properly without it wanting to hang up. We had some CNC machines where I worked that had them as part of the automatic tool change mechanism. I am afraid it might not work well made from plywood. I think the modified scotch yoke would be much easier to get working properly.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Thanks Carroll for your input.
If the suggestion was to be used I was thinking of a very large scale like 20+ inches in order to allow for toleration differences.
Do you still think it's not possible?
Regards
Luc
Making it that large will certainly help with the precision problem. Most of the ones on the machines I worked on were about 15 to 20 inches in diameter as I recall. Of course they were used to move some pretty heavy tool change equipment so that made them more susceptible to problems. With your skill at building I think you can probably make a 20 inch one work. I would like to see one made from plywood. That would be impressive. They are pretty interesting to watch them work. Once they change to the next position they hold that position very accurately until told to change again.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: gotoluc on March 09, 2017, 10:10:57 AM
Hi Alex,
User name TinselKoala made a suggestion of using a Scotch Yoke (1st pic) to convert the linear output to rotary.
The problem with it is there's no rest time. However, I thought there could be a way to modify the Scotch Yoke to create a pause time and found a variation that does exactly that (2nd pic) Link to animation: http://www.mekanizmalar.com/uk012.html (http://www.mekanizmalar.com/uk012.html)
The same site also has an Indexing mechanism (3rd pic). Link to animation: http://www.mekanizmalar.com/four-slot-two-pin-geneva-mechanism.html (http://www.mekanizmalar.com/four-slot-two-pin-geneva-mechanism.html)
This mechanism may do what we need to turn the rotor in four segments of rotation, stop, lock and pause.
As it is my magnet rotor only has 2 sets of magnets but I could add a second set without too much work and expense to advantage of the 4 position of this indexing mechanism.
I like both of these mechanism instead of gears since I could cut them out of plywood with a router.
Food for thought
Luc
Luc,
I've modeled a track follower setup which captures the stop and go motion. This is a linear reciprocating design with both input and output magnets moving linearly.
This video shows a the basic idea of a track follower setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqyiLaUw5g&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqyiLaUw5g&feature=youtu.be)
This setup does not take advantage of the self reset(because I just wanted to model quickly and show the basic idea), however, a self reset design can be achieved.
I will have to think a little more about how to mechanically loop your latest build/setup.
Regards,
Alex
That mechanism looks great Alex ;)
This kind of cam follower design I can make with a router. So that's the best to start with.
Thanks for taking the time to help!
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on March 09, 2017, 02:05:40 PM
That mechanism looks great Alex ;)
This kind of cam follower design I can make with a router. So that's the best to start with.
Thanks for taking the time to help!
Luc
Luc,
Thank you, I am glad I can help! The geometry of the track/cam may need some tweaking to enable a smoother motion, but this is a minor problem.
The one thing that bothers me is that I am not sure of the efficiency of a cam and follower, more specifically the one that I've shown in the video.
If anyone is familiar with the efficiency of a cam and follower, please chime in.
If you print the cam/track out and glue the print onto a piece of plywood and then you can cut the track with a router.
With your workmanship, I am sure you can make it ;) .
But, if accuracy becomes too much of a problem, I can make the cam/track with my CNC mill after I get back from my travels.
However, my CNC mill is quite small and can only make small parts. But I can always break larger components into smaller parts and assemble into a larger component later on.
Let me know how you would like to proceed. I can design a cam/track with info provided by you and send you the drawing so you can attempt to make it, or I can make it when I get back.
Regards,
Alex
Quote from: Nonlinear on March 09, 2017, 09:40:05 AM
The proposed operation is this (referring to the earlier version where force measurements were done):
1) The stroke length of the slider was already about 10 times shorter than the travel length of the rotor magnet. If you allow the slider to deliver its work even faster say 10 times faster than the speed of the rotor magnet, then the freely rotating rotor will travel only about 1/100th distance of the stroke during the movement of the slider. This is negligible, and it nicely approximates a perfectly synchronized rotor-slider. It is also possible that a slower movement of the slider would be also satisfactory. Like for example just let both slider and rotor move at the same speed. In that case the rotor would travel 1/10th of the rotor's stroke distance while the slider completes its stroke. One can calculate how much efficiency gets lost this way and find an optimum, a compromise between practicality and ideal condition.
2) The synchronous operation can be guaranteed by using a toque brake on the shaft, and keeping the RPM of the rotor at sufficiently low level, so that the slider should be able to complete the stroke before the rotor travels a significant distance away from the synchronous position. The torque developed on the brake can be measured, just like the RPM, from which one can calculate the output power.
3) A large enough flywheel will absorb and smooth out any jerky movement, and contribute to the slow synchronous operation.
4) A timing latch could be utilized (similar to the one used in old pendulum clocks) to time and synchronize the release of the slider magnets at the right moments, only slightly before the rotor completely covers the slider magnet.
5) The linear bidirectional movement of the slider can be rectified and converted to unidirectional rotation using two bicycle hubs (or similar ratchet mechanism), one on each side. One on the left side drives the flywheel while moving forward, and the other on the right side drives it while moving backwards.
6) this way a continuous rotatory movement can be sustained, with an easy and handy way of measuring the output power. No need for accelerating and decelerating the output wheel, or stroke. But it would make sense to start designing such a machine only after precise reliable measurements prove the existence of at least 20-30% of excess energy. Anything below that would make it challenging to overcome the losses, and it would have no practical significance anyway.
Nonlinear,
Thank you for you detailed input. Your proposed design is a good way to to mechanically loop Luc's design.
However, I think a cam and follower setup(like it is shown in this video
[size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqyiLaUw5g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqyiLaUw5g)[/size]) is simpler and better captures the motion of the operational sequence.
Perhaps, I place too much emphasis on maximizing output and minimizing input, but every little bit helps ;) .
Regards,
Alex
Hi gotoluc,
I think it would probably be best if you did not lock the output to the input. I would make sure that your output is able to ADD to the input instead of having to wait on the input before it can move. As long as they are in resonance with each other (the timing is correct) it should work. You would need a mechanical capacitor to store the energy but still have the rotor turn at the same speed (the hard part). You wouldn't be able to have it going faster then the slider can handle or it will go out of resonance like in your video when you have to adjust the speed to get the slider working at full swings. If you mechanically lock the output to the input it will be like trying observe an electron without disturbing it. They both need to move freely on their own.
Just my thoughts. Great builds I love your work!
drak
Quote from: Cairun on March 09, 2017, 08:12:43 PM
Thank you for you detailed input. Your proposed design is a good way to to mechanically loop Luc's design.
However, I think a cam and follower setup(like it is shown in this video[size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqyiLaUw5g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqyiLaUw5g)[/size]) is simpler and better captures the motion of the operational sequence.
Perhaps, I place too much emphasis on maximizing output and minimizing input, but every little bit helps ;) .
Alex,
Your cam follower design is good; it will allow the mechanism to rotate at higher speeds as well, while keeping the synchronous movement. Regarding efficiency though, I am not convinced that the cam follower would waste less energy than what I have proposed, because the roller bearings are wasting energy along the whole path of the tracks, which can get excessive at high speeds of rotation. But if there would be really 60% excess energy, then both designs should be able to at least self-run.
The problem is not with the feedback mechanism, but rather with the claim of excess energy. Despite my original reluctance, I have forced myself to read through the other related threads of Floor, and now my suspicions of deliberate deception have been confirmed. There is definitely no excess energy in such purely permanent magnet arrangements, just as theory predicts. Lumen's improved measurements have proven this already (in the now closed thread) here:
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg498010/#msg498010
and Stefan has closed the thread as well, because the subject is closed (no overunity). Despite the correct disproof, the agenda to mislead and deceive is still in full swing with a show of nice looking contraptions and fake (or grossly erroneous) measurement results.
Another example of disproof is webby1's attempt to convince Luc that he has to measure the 4th part of the cycle as well, in one of his earlier devices. He finally succeeded in this effort in post:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496971/#msg496971
and Luc has reluctantly provided the data in:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496974/#msg496974
When this 4th part of the cycle was taken into account, then Luc's averaging calculations showed only 10% of excess work, which can be very easily attributed to the other bad measurement practices mentioned earlier.
Without free energy being created, the whole show of nice devices and designs are nothing more than the shiny paint on the car from which the engine is missing (useless).
As an illustration of this absurdity there is a famous example called overbalanced wheel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
The gravitational field is conservative just like a spring. You can not get more continuous work from gravity than what you have to invest, and this is completely independent of the path of movement. One can not get more work out from a spring than what one has to invest while pressing it together. It doesn't matter whether the spring is linear or nonlinear, it is still conservative and it is very easy to prove this.
The magnetic field can be imagined as a net made of millions of tiny springs that react only with magnetic materials. It does not matter how complex net you form from such springs, they still remain conservative. The magnetic field is conservative, and Lumen has already proven this, but some people prefer to ignore this fact.
I know that it is possible to create overunity generators, for example cold fusion is one of them. Accurate measurements performed by qualified physicists prove that. But purely permanent magnet arrangements will definitely not produce overunity. Therefore I will not post on this subject for a while, because now my interest is only in observing the psychology of deception. I will just sit back and observe how far a hoax can go before some readers get fed up with the nonsense and start kicking some butts. When the whole thing blows over, then I will come back to say: "I told you so... didn't I" ;D
Nonlinear,
You are way out of line. I don't know Floor that well but I have known Luc for years. To accuse him of deliberately misleading is very wrong. Luc is a dedicated researcher looking for the truth. He has tried to follow any suggestions from anyone to make his measurements more accurate. He has not claimed OU anywhere that I am aware of. He only presents the results of his tests. When he sees results that look promising he will pursue those results until he is convinced they do not lead to an OU device. That is research, not deception. You owe him an apology for suggesting he is deliberately misleading others.
As far as OU goes, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I worked in electronics for over 50 years and have seen several times things that left me scratching my head. So I do believe OU MAY be possible. I am not convinced it IS possible nor am I convinced it is NOT possible. So I continue with my own research and follow the research of others like Luc that are willing to share their efforts.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Nonlinear,
Luc's current design is different than the original TD setup. I will perform measurements to help verify Luc's measurement results after I get back from my business travels(hopefully I will be back in about 3 weeks).
Regards,
Alex
Well Nonlinear
There you have it, you're confused and creating confusion. It's obviously you haven't read all the topics and posts to come to the conclusions in your last post.
What I'm working on at present is different then what Floor originally proposed and I first tested.
Here is a link to my last report (posted Feb. 8th 2017) on my presision tests done to Floor's twist drive concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMqBISjwieY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMqBISjwieY)
And here is my new device concept which was posted on the same day introducing my own design which I named "Mechanical Magnet Torque Amplifier": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUlDMY1iE5A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUlDMY1iE5A)
This is the design that is being discuss and tested at this time and is not related to the old information in your post above.
Your error may cause others to question your integrity and reasons for being here.
We will see
Luc
@ All readers
I threw up..... a new video.
It shows an effective magnet shield in action.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5eg7kk_magnetshield-1_tech
As far as I'm concerned, this is all open source and public domain.
All in common...that's the only real over unity there is.
Thanks for every thing Luc.
Peace... Out
floor
@ Allreaders
QUOTE from Nonlinear
"Stefan has closed the thread as well, because the subject is closed (no overunity). Despite the correct disproof, the agenda to mislead and deceive is still in full swing with a show of nice looking contraptions and fake (or grossly erroneous) measurement results. "
END QUOTE
That thread was not "closed", but rather it was locked at my (floor's) request.
Quote from: Cairun on March 10, 2017, 08:49:40 AM
Luc's current design is different than the original TD setup.
Quote from: gotolucThere you have it, you're confused and creating confusion. It's obviously you haven't read all the topics and posts to come to the conclusions in your last post. What I'm working on at present is different then what Floor originally proposed and I first tested.
Well, you fellas don't get it, do you? I'm fully aware that Luc's magnet arrangement is slightly different than the original of Floor. It absolutely does not matter along which path you move or twist the two magnets in relation to one another, they still behave like a system of passive and conservative springs. If the force is greater in one direction, then the path to travel will be shorter, and vice versa. If you accurately measure and correctly integrate the total work, you will see that there is no overunity. Not in Floor's design, not in Luc's design, not in Joe's, Fred's, and Julie's designs, not in anybodies designs of purely passive permanent magnet systems.
The difference between Floor's and Luc's versions are analogous to the difference between this design of Bhaskara's overbalanced wheel:
http://www.trevorbaylisbrands.com/tbbnew/technology/perpetual/unbalanced.asp
and this modified version called Chain Drive Gravity Machine:
http://pesn.com/2012/01/05/9602001_Free_Energy_Chain_Drive_Gravity_Machine_Open_Source_Project_Launched/
The crackpot line of thinking goes like this:
QuoteI have built the Bhaskara wheel, and damn... it doesn't work. But wait! I am smarter than Bhaskara was, I will design a chain drive instead, which is completely different and therefore it has nothing to do with Bhaskara's failed idea.
Then someone who knows physics comes along, and tells the new inventor that his gadget, which is trying to use the same principle of overbalanced weights (as Bahaskara did) to extract free energy from the conservative field of gravity will not work. This can not possibly extract free energy form the conservative field of gravity, just like Bhaskara's wheel didn't work, because they both are basically and principally the same.
But our zealous inventor accuses the commenter that he is totally confused and spreads confusion, because he can not even see that the chain drive is totally different from the Bahskara's drive. Therefore, he must be a crackpot, lacking any integrity, so the audience should despise the commenter and applaud the inventor. LOL. ;D
Quote
Your error may cause others to question your integrity and reasons for being here.
Oh, really? I am so ashamed that my stupidity and utter ignorance did not allow me to see the difference between your design and Floor's design. LOL ... LOL ... LOL ;D In fact this implicit call of yours that others should question my integrity is one sign of mean agenda and deliberate deception, but there are many more such signs.
I have a long list of such signs and symptoms collected during my reading the threads of Floor and this one, which all together indicate deliberate deception. I don't claim such a thing lightly, but I do that only because all the telltale signs are present, which are characteristic of an organized hoax. I don't want to post this list of symptoms (yet) because it would only help the culprits to refine their methods of deception.
If the readers can read between the lines, know some physics, and observe the actions and reactions of the participants, then they will be able to see what I mean. But, if one is a staunch believer in crackpottery, and despite my warnings still believes there is 60% overunity in this system, then he should build the machine himself, and wake up to the reality the hard way.
OK, I said earlier that I will not comment on this subject for a while, but this issue needed to be clarified first. I will withdraw now and observe the show. Will be back at the end of the performance, and respond to the accusations and slander that will be probably aimed at me while I am not around to defend myself. ;D
Nonlinear, so you say ferromagnetism and gravity is the same. I would not agree with that. There is a certain basic understanding of magnets, the fridge magnet level. But the longer you really observe and investigate magnetism, the more you'll see that there's more to it.
The fact that we used Teslas design without to improve it for over 100 years shows, how closedminded the establishment really is. Who would finance development of energy-efficient machines when energy is the most lucrative economy in the world? And as soon as something is against the establishment, any pro will drop it immediately. Which is why there are up to this day incredibly simple ways to violate the law of energy conservation, completely unnoticed by mainstream science.
I asked this elsewhere too, please explain me the following:
a certain exact DC pulse on a coil will repell the coil further away from a PM, the stronger thw PM is. Where does that additional energy come from?
Quote from: dieter on March 10, 2017, 03:53:17 PM
Nonlinear, so you say ferromagnetism and gravity is the same. I would not agree with that. There is a certain basic understanding of magnets, the fridge magnet level. But the longer you really observe and investigate magnetism, the more you'll see that there's more to it.
The fact that we used Teslas design without to improve it for over 100 years shows, how closedminded the establishment really is. Who would finance development of energy-efficient machines when energy is the most lucrative economy in the world? And as soon as something is against the establishment, any pro will drop it immediately. Which is why there are up to this day incredibly simple ways to violate the law of energy conservation, completely unnoticed by mainstream science.
I asked this elsewhere too, please explain me the following:
a certain exact DC pulse on a coil will repell the coil further away from a PM, the stronger thw PM is. Where does that additional energy come from?
You are an idiot, if it was simple I would have seen it, I have watched this forum since 2009.
If it was simple, I would not see the same old gang try russian coils for 5 years now on the Kapanadze forum.
I am ready to say, almost impossible, extremely difficult, and now even more so as the misinformation machine is fully oiled and greasy.
John Bedini was a fraud, the guy did not achieve OU.
And this device was stupid to begin with, another plywood idea from gotoluc. If only a nice build was done in metal, with gearing a precision made CAM to get the timing right
But its always the idiots way of making things, wood, no precision, no design research, no machine shop quotes.
A bunch of silly ass talking idiots wankin around instead of giving money to gotoluc so that we can definitly cross out that idea.
They will however talk their ass off as soon as they see it might not be working, what have you proposed that is better than gotoluc?
Nothing... What have you done? Nothing... Talkers, not walkers... Gotoluc at least is a walker, texas ranger.
Fucking ass lemmings dont even help gotoluc, the man should not even help you assholes anymore.
Nonlinear,
Quote from: Nonlinear on March 10, 2017, 02:41:09 PM
Well, you fellas don't get it, do you? I'm fully aware that Luc's magnet arrangement is slightly different than the original of Floor. It absolutely does not matter along which path you move or twist the two magnets in relation to one another, they still behave like a system of passive and conservative springs. If the force is greater in one direction, then the path to travel will be shorter, and vice versa. If you accurately measure and correctly integrate the total work, you will see that there is no overunity. Not in Floor's design, not in Luc's design, not in Joe's, Fred's, and Julie's designs, not in anybodies designs of purely passive permanent magnet systems.
It is because we can see the profound difference between and potential of Floor's and Luc's designs that we continue with our support.
Minor differences in a design can mean the difference between a working product and a failed product. Maybe you are unable to see the difference or you simply refuse to see the difference.
I believe your intentions at an earlier time were good, so please stop with the defamation of Floor and Luc and provide constructive criticism instead. Perhaps, you think that your earlier input was not well received, but Floor and Luc can only do so much at any given time. They are offering their knowledge to the public without asking for anything in return, deliberate deception will not amount to any gain for them.
Quote
If the readers can read between the lines, know some physics, and observe the actions and reactions of the participants, then they will be able to see what I mean. But, if one is a staunch believer in crackpottery, and despite my warnings still believes there is 60% overunity in this system, then he should build the machine himself, and wake up to the reality the hard way.
It is a good suggestion that anyone able should experiment themselves to see if an idea will work or not.
I will certainly conduct independent measurements to verify Luc's measurement results.
Regards,
Alex
@ Cairun
Nice concept / design...very nice.
thanks for sharing
floor
@ Gotoluc
I think you / we have done... really a superior job, especially given that the experiments
and presentations have been done on the fly, and in a public forum as well !
As far as I am aware of, and as of this point in time...
ALL points of have been well covered by us without our objection
in terms of the full ....
presentation of the devices used
presentation of the methods of measurement
presentation of the mathematics used
answering all posed questions with our goal.... the legitimate satisfaction by the questioner.
We have acknowledged all of the apparent dead ends with out dispute.
We have openly discussed all advice and all suggested approaches to
our processes.
We have pursued and achieved significant improvement in the designs.
And at this point we are about to make some real progress in terms of
coming to a clear and valid determination of a margin of error.
This was the point we had at already arrived at and were preparing for
by GotoLuc's larger build (before the recent flaming outbreaks). no big deal
Greater forces and greater displacement, can give a greater precision and
reduce the margin of error.
wow... its all, still intact, still progressing and still its amazing.....
cheers !
floor
Hi Floor and everyone
Over the weekend I setup a scale measuring apparatus to the v.2 magnet torque amplifier as I was getting way under unity from the generators output.
After 10 hours of detailed scale samples and calculations to my surprise the input force for one cycle is exactly the same as the output force :(
It was hard the believe since the first model sowed around 60% gain. So this morning I decided to re-measure the first device with the most care to details.
Now the first device is showing a 10% gain which could be caused by accumulative errors from the 5 gram resolution scale.
What I found could of cause the 60% gain error is by using a different input rotor magnet then the one used for the 11mm output.
I check the rotor magnets and found they have different magnetization force. So most likely that's what happened plus the scale resolution problem.
Sorry but looks like this configuration also has no gain.
Not a big loss (other then time) as the v.2 costs were the magnets and sliders $90. and I can still use them on other experiments.
Kind regards
Luc
@ GotoLuc
OK thanks Luc
floor
Armcortex and Webby, why are you quoting and attacking me, just to disgustingly suck up to Gotoluc?
I just trued to support his point. But you even didn't get that.
And you could not answer my question. Just some angry ejaculation of bs, like a mental kid in a sandbox, parroting his violent parents.
Go seek the responsibles for your traumata, but get off my back.
Hey Luc, sorry bout that offtopic steam...
Kudos for having the balls to report the outcome. This serious and rational behaviour helps all of us.
As you've got a bunch of strong PMs now, think about what I said above, the question about the paradoxon (see also my latest pdf in the downloads).
Webby, as long as you give mysterious hints, you seem more like a wannabe teacher. Answering questions with a question is also symptomatic btw.
See my other thead btw.
Luc,
Thanks for sharing your latest test results, it takes great courage to do that.
Even though the test results are not what we have hope it would be, it is still an advancement to our knowledge.
Regards,
Alex
Quote from: Cairun on March 15, 2017, 08:11:51 AM
Luc,
Thanks for sharing your latest test results, it takes great courage to do that.
Even though the test results are not what we have hope it would be, it is still an advancement to our knowledge.
Regards,
Alex
Thanks Alex, I'm happy to help by sharing what I find, even if the results are not favorable.
It's nothing out of the ordinary for me!... I've been doing the same for the past 10 years.
What fuels me is hope that one day we find an energy solution for those in need.
Not for fame or fortune.
Thanks for your willingness to help
Luc
When I first read "Twist Drive" I thought it would utilize sheering force, rather than attraction / repulsion.
Maybe it does?
There is a force, turning a parallel 2nd magnet. When stopped at 90deg, it can be removed fro the 1st magnet without force, eg. by gravity. Then again by gravity it can brought in parallel position. The torque of the sheering is significantly higher than the gravity force alone.
Maybe that is also a TD.
I have made a little Toy to demonstrate it, maybe I'll post a picture later.
@Gotoluc
I'm not even close to being done with the PMs yet.
Your last design was, I guess, near unity, don't really know though?. My own examinations
of interactions similar to that design left me with no understanding of why that design should have been more than unity. Although I did let myself get a bit carried away with your initial report.
From 60 % plus to 10% plus is a major oversight. Can you give us some details
of that over sight ?
also
Your energy, enthusiasm and many hours of work in the shop are much appreciated.
regards
floor
@Gotoluc
Notes..
The integration of the work done in the inputs via the rotating bicycle rim experiment....
1. position magnet by rotation above the sliding magnet
2. remove magnet by rotation from near the sliding magnet
may together (attractions and repulsions) come to a net work of less than either
1. or 2. alone (just above)......
except that their peak forces were not matched / canceling one the other out.
Other wise your complete set might have shown some OU ?
floor
Quote from: Floor on March 17, 2017, 07:09:35 PM
@Gotoluc
I'm not even close to being done with the PMs yet.
Great to hear!... please make a video demo once you have found something so I can evaluate it as well
Quote from: Floor on March 17, 2017, 07:09:35 PM
From 60 % plus to 10% plus is a major oversight. Can you give us some details
of that over sight ?
This link to the below quote explained the oversight: http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg501737/#msg501737 (http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg501737/#msg501737)
Quote from: gotoluc on March 13, 2017, 01:56:18 PM
this morning I decided to re-measure the first device with the most care to details.
Now the first device is showing a 10% gain which could be caused by accumulative errors from the 5 gram resolution scale.
What I found could of cause the 60% gain error is by using a different input rotor magnet then the one used for the 11mm output.
I check the rotor magnets and found they have different magnetization force. So most likely that's what happened plus the scale resolution problem.
So to revise what may of caused the 60% gain error.
1. I must of use a different rotor magnets to measure the input force then the output force when I first measured the v.1 device.
Seems this alone can cause a 30% difference. I was surprised of how much each rotor magnet vary in force.
2. The scale I use are 20kg max luggage scale. It has a 5 gram resolution.
The rotor input force of the first device range from 1g to 85g max. However, the scale only starts to display at 15g and above.
So I figure it's unsuitable for accuracy when measuring below 100 grams.
I would estimate the math averaging on the input of the first device could be off by 10 to 25% based on this resolution issue alone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The below are the measurements done on the
v.2 deviceThe input rotor force measured between 110g to 2.4kg, so very good data was obtained as far as the scales resolution ability.
Half of the input rotor distance (to make one output stroke) is 16 1/8 inches of circumference.
Samples were taken at every 1/8 inch distance, so 129 input distance samples were recorded in total!... giving a very good input average calculated to be 1.1kg over the 16 1/8 inch half rotor circumference.
The output force was adjusted to slide 5 inches of distance. The gram pull force measurements varied between 2.3Kg to 14.5Kg.
40 samples were taken at every 1/8 inch making an average of 6.46Kg over the 5 inch output stroke.
I've just realized I made an error (a few days back) on my final math!!!... I had the calculations of the rotor input engaging and disengaging averages calculated separately and added them together 1.24Kg + 0.957Kg = 2.2Kg but
the error is, the 2.2Kg should then be divided by 2 = 1.1Kg to get the correct input rotor average over the 16.125" for half of the rotor circumference as I correctly did above.
So if we take the 16.125" rotor input travel distance and divide it by the 5" output slider distance = 3.23 times more distance the input rotor needs to travels at 1.1Kg average compared to the 5"output distance at 6.46Kg average.
So if we multiply the input average 1.1Kg x 3.23 times = 3.55Kg of comparable input force to distance needed compared to the output.
Now if we subtract this 3.55Kg of comparable input force to the 6.46Kg output force =
2.91Kg left over which is a 82% Gain over the Input.
Quote from: Floor on March 17, 2017, 07:09:35 PM
Your energy, enthusiasm and many hours of work in the shop are much appreciated.
regards
floor
Thanks
Can someone look over my calculations to see if the reasoning looks to be correct.
Regards
Luc
@Gotoluc
Ok, ha ! interesting....
Well I'll contemplate all this till it sinks in well / then give you some feed back,
when I can.
regards
floor
I was just saying - let us verify the negative results with the same care like the positive ones.
This is great news, Luc.
Luc,
This is very encouraging news indeed.
I tried to wrap my head around this, and the attached Excel spreadsheet is the result.
Work is just force x distance and I calculated an 82% excess output work.
Hopefully, this can help others to understand it better as well.
Regards,
Alex
Thanks Alex
Looks very good
I'll be remeasuring the output and doubling the 40 samples to 80 sample over the 5 inch stroke.
We'll see if that changes anything.
I'll be posting all the sample data soon.
Regards
Luc
I've attached a xls file of my v.2 Magnet Torque Amplifier measurement data which was prepared by user webby1
Measurement Steps:
First Step:
Output slider is in rest position (already delivered output force) and is locked in position by adding a wood block.
In this position the input rotor magnet is in most attraction to the output slider magnet and this is the beginning point of the scale pull force measurements in grams.
Second Step:
Input Magnet Rotor is pulled from the rotors outer edge using a flexible steel strapping tape.
Steps 1 to 129 is a total of 16.125 linear inches of the magnet rotor outer edge travel (180 degrees) with scale pull force samples taken every 0.124 inches. 129 samples in total.
The first 57 Samples is the pull force needed to Disengage the rotor magnets from the attraction force of the output slider magnets.
Then samples 58 to 74 (in red) is the rotor magnet being temporarily attracted to the output slider magnets and why they are a negative (additive force) to the rotor.
Finally, sample 75 to 129 is the remaining pull force needed to position the rotor magnets in ideal resting position for the output slider magnets deliver maximum force.
Third Step:
Input Rotor is locked at this position which is 16.125 inch, 180 degrees from beginning measurement position.
The Output slider is released and the output slider magnets pull force is measured over its 5 linear inches (taken every 0.125 inch) of the magnet sliders output travel force.
Please note the input rotor and output slider force has been measured 180 degrees of input rotor which delivers one output stroke.
I have not bothered (at this time) to measure the other 180 degrees since in theory it should be a mirror image of the prior.
Regards
Luc
The below are input and output charts
Luc
Yep Luc
Fantastic work
If i understand well, the measurement begins after the stroke ends, when the the rotor and slider are at full stop.
I enclose a rotating drawing made on your graph, so correct me if i am wrong
Seems that i have to order some magnets and sliding bearings tomorrow he he !! :)
Thank's so much for sharing
Laurent
Bonjour Laurent
It's always a pleasure having you participate
Your understanding of the test device and timing drawings are perfect. Thank you for posting it.
Looking forward to your build and test results
Kind regards
Luc
Hi webby and Luc
Just received my ferrites magnets this morning.
To Luc
I am planning a setup and i rewatched your video on the V2 device for details. It seems that you say that the rotor diameter is 22 inches so the outer rotor distance is 22 x 3.1416 = about 69 inches, so half distance (180 degrees) is 69 / 2 = about 34.5 inches. So i don't see where the 16.125 inches (in your last calculation for 180 degrees ) are coming from ? Have you installed a second rotor for the measurement or i am missing something ?
To Webby
Thank's for input
Sorry if you have already done it, but may i ask you to explain how you get the Joules datas from the colum " gram pull"
Laurent
Quote from: woopy on March 21, 2017, 12:23:33 PM
Hi webby and Luc
Just received my ferrites magnets this morning.
To Luc
I am planning a setup and i rewatched your video on the V2 device for details. It seems that you say that the rotor diameter is 22 inches so the outer rotor distance is 22 x 3.1416 = about 69 inches, so half distance (180 degrees) is 69 / 2 = about 34.5 inches. So i don't see where the 16.125 inches (in your last calculation for 180 degrees ) are coming from ? Have you installed a second rotor for the measurement or i am missing something ?
To Webby
Thank's for input
Sorry if you have already done it, but may i ask you to explain how you get the Joules datas from the colum " gram pull"
Laurent
Oh no Laurent, I now see a terrible error!... the 16.125 inches was for each section of disengage then engage. So the 16.125 inches would have to be multiply by 2 = 32.25 inches of outer rotor traveled for 180 degrees, making the rotor 20.53 inches in diameter and the device under unity from the calculated math.
So the input rotor traveled 6.45 times the distance of the output. So input average is 1.1Kg x 6.45 = 7.1Kg input to 6.25Kg of output so under unity by about 12%
I'm so sorry for your trouble and expenses.
Please accept my apology.
At everyone, please accept my apology for the trouble my over site may of caused
Kind regards
Luc
Hi Luc
Yep, don't worry at all, we are here to test everything possible under the "trial and error" rule for the doer. Furthermore ferrite magnets are not expensive, and i will anyway use them for other stuff.
Ah those magnets will keep the mystery for some more time.
Anyway thank's for sharing your work and for your determination in searching new way for the future.
Keep going on, as i will, once will be perhaps the.......
Hi webby
thank's for your clear explanation
Good night at all
Laurent
Quote from: gotoluc on March 21, 2017, 01:40:14 PM
Oh no Laurent, I now see a terrible error!... the 16.125 inches was for each section of disengage then engage. So the 16.125 inches would have to be multiply by 2 = 32.25 inches of outer rotor traveled for 180 degrees, making the rotor 20.53 inches in diameter and the device under unity from the calculated math.
So the input rotor traveled 6.45 times the distance of the output. So input average is 1.1Kg x 6.45 = 7.1Kg input to 6.25Kg of output so under unity by about 12%
I'm so sorry for your trouble and expenses.
Please accept my apology.
At everyone, please accept my apology for the trouble my over site may of caused
Kind regards
Luc
Luc,
It seems to me, based on your description of measurement steps, that you've accounted for all the input work required for one output stroke.
Your measurement range only needs to be in between when the rotor magnet first feels a magnetic force and when it last feels a magnetic force from the slider magnet.
The graphs from the Excel spreadsheet shows that the pull forces diminishes to almost zero on both ends which indicates that you've accounted for the full range.
Any distances beyond that range should be free wheel.
Regards,
Alex
Quote from: Cairun on March 22, 2017, 08:49:43 AM
Luc,
It seems to me, based on your description of measurement steps, that you've accounted for all the input work required for one output stroke.
Alex
Yes Alex, I've accounted for all the input work required to produce one output stroke.
Quote from: Cairun on March 22, 2017, 08:49:43 AM
Your measurement range only needs to be in between when the rotor magnet first feels a magnetic force and when it last feels a magnetic force from the slider magnet.
Alex
Yes, I understand what you are saying but I don't see that helping as it would not account for the area of rotation where the rotor is being assisted by attraction to the slider, (negative red data) making the result even worse.
Quote from: Cairun on March 22, 2017, 08:49:43 AM
The graphs from the Excel spreadsheet shows that the pull forces diminishes to almost zero on both ends which indicates that you've accounted for the full range.
Any distances beyond that range should be free wheel.
Alex
I think there is a miss understanding. A full rotation is 360 degrees and I measured 180 degrees.
There are 2 output strokes for 1 rotor rotation.I measured the first 180 degrees of the rotor which created 1 output. The balance of the other 180 degrees is for the second output stroke and as I wrote before should be a mirror image of the first measured 180 degree. So how can that be free wheeling?... the same work would have to be put into the rotor to complete the 2nd output.
Kind regards
Luc
Dear Webby1
I am re-posting the perfect 5 step illustration Woopy has added at the bottom of the chart you provided.
Do you not see it illustrate a 180 degrees of rotor travel?
The 16.125 inches of rotor distance is 90 degrees worth, so as I previously wrote 180 degrees rotor distance is twice that, being 32.25 inches and 64.5 inches for the complete rotor circumference.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: woopy on March 21, 2017, 02:35:53 PM
Hi Luc
Yep, don't worry at all, we are here to test everything possible under the "trial and error" rule for the doer. Furthermore ferrite magnets are not expensive, and i will anyway use them for other stuff.
Ah those magnets will keep the mystery for some more time.
Anyway thank's for sharing your work and for your determination in searching new way for the future.
Keep going on, as i will, once will be perhaps the.......
Hi webby
thank's for your clear explanation
Good night at all
Laurent
Bonjour Laurent,
You may want to test Floor's recent suggestion of magnet shielding: http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025 (http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025)
Floor's video demo: http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025 (http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025)
Kind regards
Luc
Quote from: webby1 on March 22, 2017, 12:45:13 PM
Luc,
How can the 16.125 inches of pull data that you collected be 180 degrees?
Since it can not be 180 degrees then the illustrations that were added can not be correct. They should then have the rotor magnet at 45 degrees to the slide magnet, then rotate 45 degrees (8.125 inches of pull) so they are now in the output position and the slide released, then the slide is held and the rotor is turned another 45 degrees (8 inches of pull) thus covering the 90 degrees of pull distance you measured.
Now if the 16.125 inches of pull took the rotor magnets from 90 degrees to the slide magnets and placed them in the output position and then the slide was released and then you pulled another 16.125 inches for the next 90 degrees of rotor rotation and if that had the same force measurements as the first 16.125 inches of pull,, THEN your assumption is correct
This is where I am confused.
That's where the error was. It never was 16.25 inches!!!... it was twice that!, being 32.5 inches.
Do you understand now?
Luc
Quote from: webby1 on March 22, 2017, 04:31:13 PM
I have 129 steps times 0.125 = 16.125
Yes, I see your point. I'm going to go over it all to see how that part could of happened but maybe it's as simple as the 129 samples were taken every .25 inches and I thought it was .125 inches?
I'll go over it to try to figure it out but for sure there's no error with 129 samples for 180 degrees.
Regards
Luc
@webby1
I looked over my original papers and I can confirm the 129 samples were taken every .25 inches. It was the output sample that were taken every .125 inches.
Hope this satisfies your concerns
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on March 22, 2017, 11:44:53 AM
Bonjour Laurent,
You may want to test Floor's recent suggestion of magnet shielding: http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025 (http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025)
Floor's video demo: http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025 (http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025)
Kind regards
Luc
Hi Luc
Yes i have tried the Floor's config.
So first, yes the shielding magnet seems to slide easily through the first stuck of magnet, but at the expense of a strong up or down force (in fact this is the slider's stroke force of your V2 version), so this up or down force (depending of the vertical orientation of the stack of magnets) should be strongly directed with very good build and efficient sliding gear to maintain the magnet on the path and avoid too much friction losses. And so to be able to precisely measure the engage and disengage energy. By hand due to all the mixing forces it is of course impossible to correctly estimate .
The second thing i notice, is that the shielding effect seems to be some how effective when the second (moving "piston" ) magnet is very near to the shielding magnet, but at some distance, some repelling force is always present.
So there is not a complete cancellation of the repelling force , anyway with my magnets crude manual test and ,another time, by hand it is not possible to really estimate, due to all the mixing forces.
So it seems that we always need some mechanical force to approach the "piston" magnet towards the shielding magnets. Adding that this "piston " magnet exhibit also strong torque and up and down forces, that have to be correctly directed by a efficient mechanical device to maintain the path.
I tried to double the thickness of the shielding magnet, but all the above stay more or less the same.
So to be able to test properly , we need to invest time and energy for a very well and sturdy build, with very fine scale and a lot of time to detect if there is any OU possibility.
But by doing those crude manual test, i am sorry to say that i did not get the "waouuuhhh" feeling, that could motivate me to go further on this delicate experiment.
So to me, all those systems are very effective and interesting magnetic coupling device , but so far no OU. But i can be and i hope to be wrong of course.
Perhaps Floor will elaborate more and find the right path to the Graal.
Hope this helps
Laurent
Thank you Laurent for sharing your preliminary shielding test.
One thing for sure is, if there's a magnet configuration that can go thru a complete cycle an have a gain it's still unknown.
I'll be keeping an eye on floor's research.
Kind regards
Luc
Hi Luc and all
just for fun and without any pretention
it is what i name a "waouuuhhh" moment.
But is it good or not must be tested much bigger, because i don't feel any forces at so small scale.
https://youtu.be/qoHsCzt2uvA
Laurent
More seasoned members here will remember Butch Lafonte
for consideration ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG3sVLw_WDw
and Butch's channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/LaFonteResearch/videos
apologies for the interruption ,Butch was always a favorite here, not sure what happened [if he is still a member?]
respectfully
Chet K
Quote from: gotoluc on March 22, 2017, 06:16:16 PM
@webby1
I looked over my original papers and I can confirm the 129 samples were taken every .25 inches. It was the output sample that were taken every .125 inches.
Hope this satisfies your concerns
Regards
Luc
Luc,
I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Alex
GammaRayBurst hasn't posted since march 2015
Here is some his pseudo solid stuff of his I was looking at back around then.
http://overunity.com/14070/super-simple-way-to-see-proof-pseudo-solid-principle-works-using-ring-magnets/msg380041/#msg380041
floor
@Woopy
Here are some drawings and details of that particylar interaction @
http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025
I'm setting up to measure the inputs and output now.
@Ramset
This (below) is more related to the current topic than the Gammarayburst / pseudo solid stuff.
http://overunity.com/14412/mag-mirror-engine/
floor
@woopy
Here are some drawings that clairfy the interactions (in vthe video) some what @
http://overunity.com/17097/magnet-force-shield/msg502025/#msg502025
I am setting up to do the input put put measurements today / tomarrow.
@Ramset
Here is a device more closely related to the current topic @
http://overunity.com/14412/mag-mirror-engine/
best wishes
floor
@Gotoluc
If it interests you... somethig I would like to see... is a really good replication / redo
of the TD (twist drive) tests I first presented / ask for at the start of these topics.
best wishes
floor
Quote from: Floor on March 26, 2017, 03:13:19 PM
@Gotoluc
If it interests you... somethig I would like to see... is a really good replication / redo
of the TD (twist drive) tests I first presented / ask for at the start of these topics.
best wishes
floor
Hi floor,
I'm taking some time off but will keep an eye on your results.
Kind regards
Luc
Your efforts / innovatios have given us lots of good information...
includeing
"Luc's force"
and
what is needed to improve our processes.
bravo !
best wishes
floor
https://youtu.be/jKIWcJiJs04
hi, possible suggestion for adding a flywheel. use a one way bearing on the flywheel. if a PMA is used for a generator than a buck converter can be used to reduce the (I squared R) loss at the stator. Just a suggestion.
My most recent post of 1 unit of work in and 40 units out can be seen here.
https://overunity.com/18288/power-from-repelling-magnets/msg543345/#msg543345
Norman
For anyone here that decided to d/l the MirrorEngine.pdf's from the other topic , be ware. They are d/l as a .bin file and that is executable but for what reason? It does say here that you can include pdf's but says nothing about .bin so this raises a big RED flag on these files now.
Any info on this?
I'm sorry Norman, i cannot figure out how this overunity by twisting is achieved. By turning a magnet? How much energy does it take to turn, and is it all measured? Not enough information provided. So far i have not seen anything such that should provide overunity, even in theory.
Ayeaye remember "you can lead a horse to water (provide a drawing) but you can't make him drink" even when he sees the drawing. The best way for you to see and understand is get 2 magnets and play with them in your hand. Then mount one so it rotates and approach it from its axle direction and you will see. Then you have to measure it carefully which Floor did and so did I. When I get time I will make a short demonstration video.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on February 26, 2020, 09:56:43 AM
Ayeaye remember "you can lead a horse to water (provide a drawing) but you can't make him drink" even when he sees the drawing.
I'm sorry, there is no excuse that others don't understand, as it's your responsibility to provide enough information so that people understand. Here are people who have done experiments, you cannot say that you cannot describe an experiment to them, so that they understand.
I can keep magnets in my hand, all right. But what should i see? You didn't even say what exactly should i do with them, and what should i see. At that also, what i have found, is that feeling forces by hand is highly subjective. Like you may feel a clear force, but when you start to measure it, it's too weak for anything to measure it.
Ayeaye,
Is English not your native language? I don't understand why you are having problems with Norman's drawing and explanation.
He clearly has said that by letting a weight drop 1 cm it moves the left magnet closer to the right magnet. The right magnet then twists and lifts 20 times the first weight to a height of 2 cm. 1 unit of work in gives 40 units of work out.
Than he explains the weight on the far left is 2 times the original weight. When he lets it drop a distance of 2.5 cm it resets the left magnet back to the left and the right magnet untwists causing the 20 times weight to fall back the 2 cm.
So 1 unit of work in gives 40 units of work out. And then 5 units of work is used to reset the device. Clearly he has taken plenty of measurements.
Carroll
Quote from: citfta on February 26, 2020, 10:41:42 AM
Ayeaye,
Is English not your native language? I don't understand why you are having problems with Norman's drawing and explanation.
I'm sorry, this doesn't help, you should also know that ayeaye's live in madagascar.
How are the magnets initially oriented, where are their poles? How do they twist? One magnet turns or both magnets turn? Not to talk, the right magnet drawn as skewed, what does it mean, is it made of some magnetic rubber?
Ayeaye
First if you go back to what Floor did in his many drawings you will see that when two magnets are placed down flat on a table edge to edge they will either attract at the edge or repel.
Second then if you pick them up and leave them edge to edge and twist on 90 degrees they will resist that twist if they were attracting each other.
Third pull them straight apart widening the gap between them and you will see as Floor said almost no force and
Fourth push them together and likewise you will feel no resistance as they approach each other but you will feel the twist.
That is what Floor tested and demonstrated and what I claim is 1 unit of work in giving 40 units of work out from the twist that Floor described. In my case I start small and used the RadioShack rectangular ceramic magnets that have a hole in the center. You can buy them at Lowes and Homedepot.
Play with them and you will see. Then make a mount for one to rotate but not move end to end and then measure that rotation. You have to limit the twist because if you go too far you will be locked together N to S.
If you look at the drawing and then do these experiments it should be very clear.
My first measurements came in about 400-500% extra but I tweaked that quite a bit in the last week.
Norman
Ok, two magnets against each other, side by side, attracting, right? I twist one 90 degrees, this takes energy. Then there is no attraction between the magnets. But when i release the magnet, it twists back the 90 degrees, which gives back the energy taken by the initial twist. So where is overunity? The second twist gives more energy than the first twist gets, really?
You did not listen to what I told you to do. Re read what I said and study it with the drawing.
The input is moving the magnets first apart to untwist and then back together to twist.
And that work is very slight. That almost free twist becomes the output. 1:40 ratio
Norman
After 20 years of watching various free energy devices my conclusion is simple: magnetic field is source of energy.Im curious what do you think
Quote from: forest on February 26, 2020, 12:43:08 PM
After 20 years of watching various free energy devices my conclusion is simple: magnetic field is source of energy.Im curious what do you think
Yes i think the same, but i think the reason is asymmetry of the magnetic field, that is non-Coulomb irregularity. Come both from the Maxwell equations, and experiments seem to show that.
So all i understand, the magnet is initially twisted. When releasing it, it untwists. But why should it then twist when bringing magnets back together again?
Or i need a clear drawing where the orientation of magnets is clearly seen at every stage. And no skewed magnets on the drawing.
Here are 2 photos of my second attempt that show the device. 1st is the magnet gap open and on the right you see 2 stacked RadioShack rectangular magnets with the hole in the middle mounted on a tongue depressor to allow it to pivot up close to the other twisting magnet on the left.
2nd is with the magnet gap closed showing the left magnet twisted up and lifting 2 3/16 washers up 2 cm. It takes very little work to close and open the gap. This was my 2nd attempt. Today I quickly remeasured 5.5 cm lift of 12 BBs = 66 units and closing the gap required 6.5 cm x 3 BBs = 19.5 giving 338%.
The green twisty in the photo was used to attach 2 washers to the crank which shows you how I work quick and dirty till the concept is valid. I have switched to BBs because they are more precise. By adding or subtracting a BB at a time you can determine the max power. I made bucket to hole the BBs from a plastic coffee creamer.
Sorry the photo does not match this latest measurement technique of using BBs.
That tongue depressor wood on the right is a stop to limit the rotation - again quick and dirty broken off and hot glued in place.
True OU. And a 2 sec video to shows the lifting as the gap closes.
Today I drew up the method to feed the lifted output back to the input to make it self run.
And remember my latest version 7 has a ratio of 1:40 units out - 4,000% efficient because I changed some geometry and leverages after hours of experiments. The last versions us a hinged door to move the magnet up closer to magnetically twist the rotating magnet. This all came together in just over a weeks time.
Again Floor, I say thank you for sharing all of your experimenting that has led to this replication and measurements.
I added the principle drawing below.
To get yourself started take a McDonald's coffee cup and put some weight in the bottom to hold it in place. Poke 2 holes straight through with a large paperclip carefully straightened out with a vice and pliers. The bend one end at 90 degrees and seriously hotglue the axle and magnet so you can then manually move a magnet up to and away from it and see the twisting but you will want to limit that twisting or it will just get stuck together.
Norman
Here is how you can jumpstart in 15 mins. Take a small coffee cup and poke 2 holes evenly in both sides with a large paper clip straightened out on a vise or with pliers. Hold the end with a pliers tight and poke the hole through. Then bend a 90 degree angle at one end and seriously hot glue that to the center of a RadioShack rectangle magnet with a hole in the center. Cut 2 1/2 in. squares from the plastic of a milk jug and push those on the wire to act like hubcaps to hold the wire in place so it does not move end to end. You can see I put wheel weights in the cup to hold it in place.
Then play with it. I also hot glued the other magnet to a wood block at the same height as the twistable magnet. And I added a small wood dowel to limit the rotation.
And play play play.
Norman
By overunity i mean continuous overunity. Like when a magnet enters a magnetic field of another magnet by speed with no initial force, and then leaves the magnetic field with increased speed. At that all these conditions have to be met. Like when it enters into the magnetic field by speed, accelerates, but then stops by colliding with another magnet, it gains energy, sure, but it doesn't leave the magnetic field with increased speed.
As i understand it by now, is on the drawing below. When moving the right magnet towards the left magnet, the right magnet indeed turns. Moving it closer to the left magnet takes very little energy, because the horizontal forces are balanced. Turning provides of course much more energy than moving requires, because both poles attract to the opposite poles of the left magnet.
So i guess you think that turning providing much more energy than moving requires, is overunity. It is not. Because it can all be explained by the Coulomb model, and there cannot be any overunity in the Coulomb model. Why, because the poles there have completely spherical fields, and in a spherical field, decreasing the force needs exactly the same energy as increasing the force provides.
Thus it is in principle not different from like dropping one magnet on another, when they attract. It takes no energy at all to drop, and the dropped magnet accelerates, getting a lot of energy. Yet it is not overunity, that is not a continuous overunity, as the dropped magnet stays on the magnet that it were dropped to, and moving it away from there takes the same amount of energy, as the dropping gave.
I'm sorry but, it seems to me by now like just some gimmick, maybe made a bit more complicated, so it is more difficult to understand, but coming from not understanding what overunity is.
I would recommend to take a physics handbook - section mechanics : force : lever/-arm and to understand the difference in work units between Zugkraft ~ traction(force) and Hubkraft ~ lifting force and the importance of the Reibung/-Zahl ~ friction/- number .
What I see is something like a " magnetic gear".
And I do not see that anybody declared here " overunity power" in a closed cycle system !
This seems more to be like a " magnetic spring effect",catapult
Overunity to me is more work out than in. But in context remember that permanent magnets can do work by attracting something and lifting it but then you are stuck at the sticky spot and undoing that probably requires equal work so there is no net.
Then when extra power is demonstrated that extra power can be used to make the device run itself if there is enough. By that definition I have presented 3 devices but none would self run because they need at least 300-400% extra to switch the magnetic power on and off and collect it to be used.
Here is a quick and dirty photo of how to measure the coffee cup demonstrator work out.
I bent the paper clip and hot glued a straight pin with a hook so I could hang a coffee cup creamer bucket with BBs to test the max out. You can see that the stick was lifted to horizontal but the BBs position is not clear because the axle was not bent to 90 degrees.
I'll let the input measurements to you in a similar fashion. Along the way if you experiment enough you should discover some serious work out enhancers.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on February 27, 2020, 08:02:54 AM
Overunity to me is more work out than in.
No, more energy out than in is not enough for continuous overunity. Like if you drop an object and it falls to the ground, this is more energy out than in. But to lift the object to the same height again takes the same energy as the dropping gave.
When you have constructed and fine tuned the coffee cup Floor Twist Drive this drawing shows what you will see but probably not the 1:20 ratio.
We all understand the drawing on the left but you have to build to see and understand and believe the drawing on the right. Then you will believe it. Then you will know what it is really like to ride a roller coaster - then you will believe that the power in permanent magnets can be exploited and utilized.
Make the Floor coffee cup TD and you will see and understand and believe. But the keyboarders will never know what it is really like to ride a roller coaster.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on February 28, 2020, 07:11:29 AM
But the keyboarders will never know what it is really like to ride a roller coaster.
I'm more into theory. What i think out that's the output. Sometimes it finds a way into physical, but the thing i do is thinking.
I think the main problem with TD is that its using weight which it lifts
for the resetting itself.
So, if you use part of the weight going down for the external work, the resetting will be affected.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wfk0d
THE TWIST DRIVE
Twist Drive is the name I gave to a particular class of devices / magnet interactions, which embody specific sets of interactions between magnets.
My own explorations of magnet interaction first began with a question. It seems easier to separate to attracted magnets from each another by twisting them apart, rather than by pulling them directly away from each other. Does it actually require less work to separate the magnets by twisting or is it that there is a kind of magnetic equivalent to leverage, which makes the separating easier, even though technically speaking, the amount of work done is the same either way ? Pursuit of the answer to that question was a door way into a 7 years long exploration of magnets, their interactions and physics.
I built my first two test benches, just to examine the differences between sliding, twisting and directly pulling magnets from each other. The separation by twisting version I called the "twist drive".
I first considered the phrase "Torque Drive", which would have been a name with more sex appeal. I chose instead, to christen it with the some what dorky "Twist Drive". This was specifically to turn off and / or discourage attention from specific types of viewers / readers. I'm not trying to create or promote a fad and my videos and internet time are not monetized. It is interesting to note, an individual (unknown to me) produced a YouTube video with a diagram of the device, wherein that presenter termed the device as the "Torque Drive". I'm guessing that presenter expected more views and attention from the sexier name. Yet another presenter of the "Twist Drive" chose to refer to it as "floor's magnetic torque amplifier". Note however this presenter chose to present his own and other variations of / on the device, while never actually presenting a replication of the Twist Drive itself.
As an aside.
During the course of these explorations, I arrived at something of an understanding of the Bloch wall model. The Bloch wall is a molecular structure found in permanent magnets, which provides a kind of magnetic shielding between the magnetic domains within those magnets. That shielding is not an over unity event in itself, but it does represent / is a form of magnetic shielding, known to exist in nature.
Now returning to the Twist Drive as topic.
Until recently, I had not fully understood, nor did I have a very complete explanation of, or theory of why the twist drive interactions could result in over unity. I was very much so misinformed as to just how substantial the difference between the attracting force and repelling force available between a given two magnets can be under certain conditions.
Be all that as it may and in contrast to its simple appearance, the Twist Drive itself, embodies a complex and extremely difficult to understand set of magnet interactions. In some specific configurations, the twist drive demonstrates magnet interactions (energy exchanges) which result in a NET energy gain of ZERO (possible using springs). This is the common view of magnet interactions, and one which is held by scientific convention as the only possibility. In other specific configurations, the Twist Drive demonstrates dramatic UNDER UNITY results, wherein, convention holds that this simply cannot be. Under unity is just as anomalous as is over unity (if there is no explanation as to where the energy goes). To my mind, under unity and over unity are equivalent in value as proof of over unity, in that, the one reveals the path to the other. Other configurations demonstrate OVER UNITY (more mechanical work out than is input).
THE TWIST DRIVE
I have insisted that in order that the reader can know whether the device works as claimed, she or he should see for their self. Also ... tunnel vision by an experimenter is generally the rule, rather than the exception. Peer review is essential to the scientific process. If the claims are exceptional, then exceptional proofs are also needed. Not only this, but faking results is too easily done in a video format. Believers only clog up the process. But please also understand that I DO consider beliefs of a certain order to be of value in one's life, over all.
...
The Twist Drive is not a device which utilizes the kind of magnetic force redirection (magnetic force shielding) which most readers of the "Magnets Motion and Measurement" topic may be familiar with. It is a "different kind of animal". Its over unity functioning is dependent upon the fact that the attraction possible between a given two magnets, is typically greater than the repulsion possible between those same two magnets.
...
Magnetic forces, whether attracting or repelling ones, increase when the distance between a given two magnets is decreased. Those changes in force magnitude to distance are not linear.
The shapes of magnets, have major effects upon the how they interact with one another. The magnets / magnet shapes which I have been using (3/8 by 7/8 by 1 7/8 inch ceramic wafer magnets, poles on the broad faces), give specifically these results.
In an attraction mode, the rate of change in force magnitude to the change in distance (specifically at VERY near) is nearly linear, (nearly vertical / over a very small distance) and the rate APPROACHES an inverse square relationship as the magnets get nearer to one another ( from very near until touching).
In a repelling mode, the rate of change in force magnitude to change in distance (specifically at VERY near) is nearly linear, (nearly horizontal over a very small distance) and the rate APPROACHES an inverse square relationship as the magnets get nearer to one another (until touching).
In attraction or repelling mode, the rate of change in force magnitude to change in distance (specifically at far distances) become nearly linear (nearly horizontal) , and the rate APPROACHES an inverse square relationship.
...
The attraction possible between a given two magnets, is almost always greater than the repulsion possible between those same two magnets.
The DIFFERENCE in the force magnitude between when in an attraction mode and when in a repulsion mode, of a given two magnet, at a given same distance, is greatest when the magnets, are at either a near or very near distance.
The differences in force available during attraction modes and repulsion modes are due to changes in the magnetic polar orientations, of the magnetic domain structures within the magnets (molecular and atomic domain structures).
When in repulsion, a given two magnets tend to weaken (demagnetize) each other. When in attraction the same two magnets tend to strengthen (magnetize) each other.
THE TWIST DRIVE
There is a threshold in coercive magnetic force magnitude which must be reached, before domain reorientation become a major factor. That force threshold is reached when the ceramic magnets I use, are in near proximity to one another. The use of differing magnet materials, and the proportion of the strengths of the magnets used (in relationship to each other) will affect the magnet proximity
at which domain reorientations figure prominently.
There are other major factors, such as magnet shape which I do not considered here.
...
Note that RO stands for rotating while SL stands for sliding.
In regard to the forces which motivate the ROTATION of the RO.........
During the rotation of the RO magnet in relationship to the SL magnet, 2 attraction forces and 2 repulsion forces are present, always.
................................................
When the RO magnet is crossed at its middle by the SL magnet at 90 degrees ......
As the section of the RO magnet which is ABOVE SL rotates from 90 degrees off from parallel to
SL, toward parallel to SL, the balance between the attracting and repelling forces shifts.
Simultaneously, as RO rotates, the balances in forces between the section of the RO magnet which is
BELOW SL also shift.
................................................
Above SL, and during ONE direction of rotation over a 180 degree course from parallel to again parallel.... attraction increases as repulsion decreases, while below SL, repulsion increases as attraction decreases.
Above SL, and during the OPPOSITE direction of rotation over a 180 degree course from parallel to again parallel... attraction decreases as repulsion increases, while below SL, attraction increases as repulsion decreases.
These interactions are very complex, and words alone become utterly insufficient to describe them. Watch the videos first or you will likely never grasp it.
................................................
During the course of the RO rotation there are attracting forces (N/S and S/N) which contribute to the RO rotation. N/S magnet pole orientations support N/S/N/S domain orientations. N/S/N/S domain orientation are there by increased. This in turn STRENGTHENS to the attracting element's contribution to the rotational forces.
Simultaneously there are repelling forces (N/N and S/S) which contribute to the RO rotation. N/N and S/S magnet orientations tend to reduce N/S/N/S domain polar orientations. This in turn WEAKENS the repulsive element's contribution to the rotation of RO.
Up to the point at which RO is parallel to SL, ONLY SOME of the forces act to increase / maintain N/S/N/S domain orientations. Other forces (although still contributing to the rotation of RO) act to reduce N/S/N/S domain orientations.
THE TWIST DRIVE
When the SL magnet is aligned parallel to the RO magnet (the rotation is completed), the magnets are in attraction as both a N to S alignment and a S to N alignment. Now there are ONLY attractions and ALL OF THE FORCES act to, increase / maintain N/S/N/S domain orientations. Forces are optimized in terms of causing the attraction of magnet SL to magnet RO (straight line in a plane 90 degrees to the plane of RO rotation).
FINALLY
When the RO to SL, parallel alignment, results in a N to N and a S to S alignment (both poles repelling), the FORCE OF REPULSION is considerably weaker over the course of the SL magnets travel (straight line), than would be the FORCE OF ATTRACTION present over the course of the SL magnets travel (straight line), if the RO to SL parallel alignment, was instead N to S and S to N (both poles attracting).
...
peace out
floor
...............................
@ all readers
1. The sliding magnet (SL) is far from the Rotating magnet (RO). RO is at a right angle to SL
RO is practically free to rotate (because it is distant from SL)
2. RO is rotated 180 degrees against the very tiny magnetic forces. (either a clock wise or counter clock wise direction, (WORK IN)
depending upon magnet polar orientations). What matter is that SL is now far from RO, but also parallel to and in ATTRACTION
to RO (SL barely wants to slide toward RO).
3. SL is pulled by attraction toward RO, almost touches RO. (WORKOUT)
4. RO is rotated back to 90 degrees off from SL against magnetic forces to position # 1 again MAJOR (WORK IN).
5. SL is pulled to far from RO while SL is at 90 degrees off from RO. This is against small attracting forces which are due to domain re-orientations. (WORK IN)
@ all readers
Typo error
1. The sliding magnet (SL) is far from the Rotating magnet (RO). RO is at a right angle to SL
RO is practically free to rotate (because it is distant from SL)
2. RO is rotated 90 degrees against the very tiny magnetic forces. (either a clock wise or counter clock wise direction, (WORK IN) CORRECTION RO is rotated by 90 degrees not 180
depending upon magnet polar orientations). What matter is that SL is now far from RO, but also parallel to and in ATTRACTION
to RO (SL barely wants to slide toward RO).
3. SL is pulled by attraction toward RO, almost touches RO. MAJOR (WORKOUT)
4. RO is rotated back to 90 degrees off from SL against magnetic forces to position # 1 again MAJOR (WORK IN).
5. SL is pulled to far from RO while SL is at 90 degrees off from RO. This is against small attracting forces which are due to domain re-orientations. (WORK IN)
floor
Today by changing some more geometry I got
closing the mags = 8 units
lift from twist power = 60 units (750%
and 9 units to open mags giving 28% switching/loss 72% extra power.
The twist power is real if you maximize the closer stronger and further weaker characteristic of magnets with a geometry/leverage compensator to save wasted units.
Now that I have the concept down solid I will scale this up.
I define a unit to be a. cm moved x b. BBs moved. ie 1 BB lifted 1 cm is 1 unit of work.
Norman
Floor, i appreciate your effort, you know a lot about magnets, can do a lot and have done a lot. You can make many fascinating things, where magnets move in the most incredible ways. But think what wonders one can do with simple dominoes, think then how much more the magnets enable to do.
But most unfortunately, no matter how fascinating your setups are, if they can be explained by the Coulomb model, they are not overunity. You and Citfta said that i shouldn't post in your threads. But, when your setups are not overunity, and you cannot show that they are, that you have not done, then strictly speaking you shouldn't post in the overunity forum at all. Find a forum that has nothing to do with overunity, and write about your work there.
Many thanks to Floor for his excellent write ups about the TD principle. And also may thanks to Norman for his demos and testing of Floor's ideas. Because of their efforts I have decided to get back to work on applying some of the things I have learned from both of them. I am in the process of building a device that will utilize the TD principle in a slightly different way. When I get it done I will post a video of the results whether they are good or bad. Even if things don't work like I think they will maybe someone else watching the video will see a way to improve what I have. Some preliminary tests seem to show that what I am trying to do MIGHT possibly work. But I have been fooled before.
It will probably be tomorrow or even the next day before I get it finished and have time to video the results.
Carroll
https://vimeo.com/401541033 (https://click.email.vimeo.com/?qs=a57c09a9b7697f0ea94f58a46e22bbce5c8ab97165c19f536c615f3403ae315d357d09a6fbffdb4ad7daa89e6bd60ffe23c39a5e6f056a3b441ae39db9ba34a9)
Replaced the bad link. This is my first time using Vimeo.
Quote from: citfta on March 27, 2020, 11:04:18 PM
https://vimeo.com/user110993378/review/401541033/fa97184c2d (https://vimeo.com/user110993378/review/401541033/fa97184c2d)
Let me know if this link doesn't work. This is my first time using Vimeo.
At least for me Vimeo says "Sorry, we couldn't find that page", when using the Chromium browser.
https://vimeo.com/401541033 (https://click.email.vimeo.com/?qs=a57c09a9b7697f0ea94f58a46e22bbce5c8ab97165c19f536c615f3403ae315d357d09a6fbffdb4ad7daa89e6bd60ffe23c39a5e6f056a3b441ae39db9ba34a9)
Hi Carroll,
This link works, thanks for showing your setup. Perhaps with a pulsed stepper motor to turn the stator magnet always into the right "rotor receiving" position, a "highly" efficient motor could be had. 8)
Gyula
This indeed looks like some form of V-gate, it looks like that increasingly greater attraction of every next magnet makes it to accelerate. Thus there is no overunity, and bringing it out of the sticking point takes more energy than can be obtained from the rotation.
Why to try something that is a design that in theory has no overunity, instead of experimenting with something that in theory has overunity. Just blindly trying whether there maybe is overunity, is what overunity research supposed to be? No. Is that interesting? In my opinion, no, but i'm interested in overunity, maybe for some who is just interested in doing some tricks with magnets, i don't know.
Carrol thx for posting.
Note to member aye aye
Do you think it would be possible for you to keep to your own Topics or threads when asked by OP/thread starters here ?
Quote from: ramset on March 28, 2020, 12:04:20 PM
Do you think it would be possible for you to keep to your own Topics or threads when asked by OP/thread starters here ?
These threads are for everyone, no?
aye aye Many members here take great issue with your unwanted and unsolicited input .
I must admit to not reading here anymore due to your constant redundant negative contributions.
And now I hear request to install moderation in the topic ?
why not start your own builders topic ?
Floor and others here have been building and experimenting for quite some time.
When such persons can't share their work in their own topics due to ......?
the result will be self evident ...
running around a "jobsite" or lab or anyplace people of like mind are trying to build and
jumping in with repeated redundant comments and distractions ??
how many times do you have to be asked ??
Quote from: ramset on March 28, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
aye aye Many members here take great issue with your unwanted and unsolicited input .
Many members, who are they, Floor and Citfta, who have personally attacked me a number of times. I don't consider them objective. Do i have a body, no?
Unsolicited input? Who i have to ask permission to post in this forum? I have not seen anywhere such forum rules, so i cannot even see what i'm accused of. If you accuse someone, the first you supposed to say is what you accuse one of, this is how it normally should be. Not a single real reason has been said.
@norman6538
Nice work / thanks for time spent,
It has become a pleasent task to read your observations / ideas so on.
Thanks for bumping up the clairity a notch.
best wishes
floor
All right CITFTA !
good luck with it.
PS
Its Bloch not block.. My eye sight is sometimes not so good any more either.
regards
floor
Hi Floor,
Hope all is well for you.
I thought you may be interested in a youtube users work named Raymondslab
His present magnet research reminds me of the effect of your Twist drive but used in a different way.
No. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7c5d3f8sU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7c5d3f8sU)
No. 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1B9NnRUMvU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1B9NnRUMvU)
No. 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gBfaLPlMJA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gBfaLPlMJA)
Regards
Luc
Thanks GoTo Luk
floor
@Telecom
Re: TD replications
« Reply #276 on: February 29, 2020, 09:04:09 PM »
Quote
I think the main problem with TD is that its using weight which it lifts
for the resetting itself.
So, if you use part of the weight going down for the external work, the resetting will be affected.
End Quote
If Newtons observations are valid (they seem to be).... Then it should require some thing like
115 grams on the RO (over 44 degrees of travel ? if I am remembering correctly) to lift the 105 grams on SL by 22 degrees on the SL.... and It does this in the videos. Work in > work out... in reverse.
Note
SL input really only needs about 80 grams (average force) if / when input weight is changed / integrated over the 22 degrees approach of SL toward RO, while the 115 grams RO is simultaneously lifted. But RO does lift 105 grams by that 22 degrees SL, does it not ?
It surly is a curious device...
If input on SL is returned when the SL weight falls back to its start position, are we not, getting that input back ? Zero net input ?
What then is, the RO ? Output ? Is RO output, even if is self cancels / undoes ? After all, the input
also self cancels / is gotten back doesn't it ? Or is the input (SL) gotten back + more ?
Who knows ? Only an actual replicator / precise replicator knows for sure.....
Something's moving.
An aside...
By closing the gap (while sliding) to very near to zero (less gap than I typically demonstrate), I have gotten the RO to lift 130 grams.
That increase to 130 grams also means the RO hangs at / balances with SL to RO force, at about 50 degrees RO, while SL is at 22 degrees distance (SL).
floor
Continued
floor Quote
"But RO does lift 105 grams by that 22 degrees SL, does it not ?"
End floor Quote
NO it doesn't.
floor Quote
Or is the input (SL) gotten back + more ?
end floor Quote
NO it isn't.
Still, there is some thing elegant about the the T.D. interactions. Like the long duration of a pendulums' swinging, elegant. Although, if we draw energy off that swing we directly reduce it.
The T.D. is a little like worm drive gears, but this analogy doesn't fit exactly. There is no physical
/ mechanical / rigid linkage between RO and SL.
The T.D. is a little like two pulleys sharing a common axle. One pulley having twice the diameter of the other pulley. The larger diameter pulley weight string, loaded with 1/2 the weight of the smaller pulley.
But this isn't a good fit either, because in the pulley scenario, the combined weight / mass / inertia of the weight objects, is 3 times the weight of the weight which hangs upon the larger pulley (the LONG side of the lever).
In the T.D. scenario the the combined weight / mass / inertia of the weight objects, is a little more than 2 times the weight of the weight which hangs upon the SL unit (the SHORT side of the lever).
Up to this point, perhaps the most valuable / clearly understood (by me) thing I have gotten out of the T.D., has been the concept of force neutralization by creation of a near balance between attracting and repelling forces.
Thanks much for the keen observations / critique.
best wishes
floor
Floor Please contact Stefan on your New board [he needs the name for it?..what to call it ?]
Regarding... Its Bloch not block.
Just spoke to a gentleman in the back yard at my home. He said he was from Irelan and that his name was Paddy O' Furniture. He insisted that its pronounced bloke wall.
Just goes to show ya.
PS
Hows the shielding going !
regards
floor
@ Telecom
If the RO and SL magnets were either bar magnets (poles at ends) or cubes, instead of wafer magnets, we would have a whole other set of curves.
Another point...
The T.D. gave me some thing of a real world model / study of the Bloch wall ?
(helical magnet interaction)
floor
Also this is interestng... I think .
floor
@ all readers
I don't consider myself an expert, just a learner.
My explorations along this T.D. devic / line and studying it physics / mechanics goes back a ways.
https://overunity.com/13699/new-perm-mag-engine-design-1-5-1-ratio-work-from-magnets/msg366977/#msg366977
https://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg388336/#msg388336
best wishes
floor
@ All readers
Until the very recent, it had been more than 3 years since I posted in this topic.
My last post was March, 28th, 2017.
I revived the T.D. as discussion, because discussion on another topic was moving toward
what I call magnetic force interactions in the "far field". Beginning on Aug 31 2019 that topic was besieged by a series of troll assaults.
After The T.D.
I studied a bunch and then got into a new criteria for design.
I found methods for, force neutralization via balancing attractions with repulsions, force shunting to 90 degrees (allows for almost no energy expenditure during certain magnet reorienting actions), net gain in magnet work, other things.
I am redoing that topic / materials with a moderator status.
In the interim please check out this other related topic.
That topic is Newtons magnets
@ https://overunity.com/18137/newtons-magnets/msg544070/#msg544070
The brief videos are not monetized, are open source, and so are all of the original / novel designs.
Some of the magnet interactions in the videos are flat out amazing. My explorations / knowledge have come a very long.
best wishes
floor
Floor I thank you so much for posting and sharing all of your experimentation and ideas. I have about 10 boxes of magnet or wheel stuff in my basement that I have worked on and I now have seen and made 4 permanent magnet devices that have more work out than work in. But unless there is about 300% extra I can't get them to self run. So here is the basic cycle.
1. set something where it will do work.
2. measure that work after it is done.
3. reset the device so it can repeat the cycle and measure that reset work required.
Then you are ready to repeat at step 1. So you have 2 work ins to measure and 1 work out. By tweaking I can reduce the work in of step 1 but that increases the work in of step 2. And to get this to work takes precision like a clock maker.
Right now I could show you a self running machine work in/work out wise if I am allowed to do the manual switching for each step. That is where I am stuck right now.
But to me the most discouraging part is when I show this to my closest friends I get "Dah" - no curiosity nor encouragement. So working like that takes a long time. My greatest encouragement has come from the work of Butch Lafonte and Floor. Thanks guys.
Norman
Norman6538
I personal messaged you.
regards
floor
I won't / don't want to claim that these results are valid. I was too distracted / over whelmed with stuff at the time these measurements were made....
A previous comment to ...
@Norman6538
....................................... with changes and corrections (at 5/28/20) and an addendum, to all readers.
Specifically... with the magnet, shapes, types and orientations I use....
ceramic, 3/8 by 7/8 by 1 7/8 inches, wafer magnets, poles on the broad faces,
both poles presented at the edges.
RO is the rotating magnet
SL is the sliding magnet
0 degrees RO is 90 degrees off from parallel to SL
Other wise I will refer not to degrees but to units of travel distance by the weight bottle,
whether RO or SL.
When RO is at 0 deg. to SL .... this what I generally would call neutral, in terms of either attracting or repelling force against the sliding motion of SL.
Because of magnetic domain representations, within the RO and SL magnets both there is an attraction of SL TOWARD RO. Its is always there in magnet interactions and it effects the total amount of either attracting or repelling force present. It is especially strong when the magnet are very near to one another.
We normally don't know it's there because it is concealed within the larger forces of either attractions or repulsions that occur between magnets.
When RO is at 0 degrees to SL there is an overall neutralization of attracting and repelling forces upon SL (only in the sliding direction)..... but not upon RO in its ROtating direction.
Forces which WOULD cause SL to rotate are present (Newton's laws still apply) but the sliding track does not allow that to happen to SL (no SL motion = no energy spent upon SL).
Along the sliding direction forces are equal and opposite / canceling.
EXCEPT for the attracting force present due to the domain flipping. Call it SP6538..
On my test bench, as set up, when SL is at 5 /units of distance from RO and RO is at 13 deg.....
STICK SPOT 6538 will lift 130 grams on RO. as it causes both the rotation of RO from 13 deg. to 0 deg. and..... it will simultaneously cause the sliding of SL from 5 units of distance to 0 units of distance, without any input / weight on the SL unit. Then it becomes SP6538 as you pull SL away from
RO.
SP6538 can be either an input or an output. This depends our call. IF.....
130 grams hangs upon the RO pulley while RO is at 18 deg. and SL is at 22 units of distance (22 deg. on the SL scale)... it takes an input on SL of 307 units of work, to bring SL to 0 units of distance. This is accomplished by hanging a series of weights on the SL pulley. Lighter and lighter weights as SL gets closer to RO. At 5 units of distance (5 deg. SL scale) no weight is needed on the SL pulley.
We just did the lifting 130 grams times 18 deg. RO (18 units of distance times 130 grams = 2340
units of work) by applying 307 units of work on the SL. But its no OU unless we can get every thing back to the starting points.
Both RO and SL are at zero.... RO is at a right angle to SL (0 deg. RO). SP6538 is in our face.
How many work units to pull SL from 0 deg. back to 30 deg. (22 not 30) while RO is at 0 deg RO ?
Answer... around 404 units of work.
so.. that's 307 + 404 = 711... but there remains one other measurement to do.
Because... when the RO weight falls from 0 to 18 deg. while SL is at 22 units of distance from RO...
RO is still under some influence from the SL magnetic force..
Therefore we must measure the work needed to rotate RO from 0 deg. to 18 deg. RO, while NO WEIGHT hangs upon the RO pulley and SL remains distant at 22 units of distance from RO. This is equal to 1845 units of work.
307 SL input 30 (22 not 30) to 0 deg. SL
404 SL return input 0 to 30 (22 not 30) deg SL (RO is at 0 deg.)
1845 RO pull down input (no 130 grams)
2556 total input
130 grams times 18 units of distance = 2340
2556 - 2340 = 216 Under Unity.... oh man bummer ... right ?
If we look at it as ...
just one input ... 130 grams times 18 deg. RO = 2340 and....
three separate outputs totaling to 2556 unit of work.... then its
216 Over Unity. yep...
But that's not all folks..... one can change every thing up and get 3 inputs that amount to less than the
one single output instead.
@ All readers addendum from the present time (5/28/20)..
A couple of months ago / or more, I stood over the T.D. unit and pulled measurement sets until I was pretty well bleary eyed. A several weeks long stint ! Hours long measurement / writing down data sets then contemplation / next measurements sets, so on. One data set blending into the next. Some times loosing track of which data sets I was working on !
Except as contributing to the over view, no data from any prior measurement set is valid for the next measurement set, once a single element / condition is changed.
At points, the goal was simply to get a grasp / acquire, a general comprehension of / over view of, how one change effects the other three aspects, and damn the precision, at least for the present.
Every change in set up effects the other three aspects. 22 units of travel distance as the maximum on SL and with 115 grams on RO, and RO hangs at 40 deg. RO.... Then 30 units of travel distance as the maximum on SL (rather than 22 deg) and with 115 grams on RO, and RO then hangs lower when SL is at the max distance. SL work input radically changes, SL return stroke work is increased. The ratio of the RO output to the work needed to pull down RO from 90 degrees when no 115 grams of weight
hangs upon RO and SL is most distal from RO (RO return) is changed.
So on, and then when working / looking at the changes in SL and RO behaviors when SL is near to RO , wow / ha ha ha !
I gained / regained specific insights / understandings, and as before (3years ago), I don't see any reason why the Twist Drive, should result in O.U. . I'll just say, my T.D. tests, are inconclusive.
I would rather work with the magnetic shielding / shunting any way. Those interactions / results make sense to me / are kick ass.
@ https://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg494854/#msg494854
@ All readers
that's all for now
thanks for the feed backs / confirmations / reality checks
best wishes
floor
Floor first I want to thank you for all that you have done and shared. You certainly have shown lots of options. And moving to units in vs units out makes it so simple and easy to comprehend. My devices have been about 200% and more OU but I have found that to do the mechanical switching from setting to lifting to resetting requires more than maybe 200%. I have a bag of tricks that help a lot but as I said before my clockmaking skills are poor and have not been able to make it self run but I do expect to see that in a year or so. I work in spurts and this spurt ran dry a month ago.
Norman
@Norman
Hey, the inspiration, discoveries and enjoyment have got to be there or its just not worth it, and the work, then suffers any way.
aside..
ONE... of the reasons I made a jump from the magnetic force shielding / shunting, to the topic of the Twist Drive, was to break up the continuity of the Magnets motion and measurement topic.
Sometimes this can shake the dogs / trolls off thier scent trail. My appologies that this allso breaks up the continuity for everyone else as well.
untill next
peace out
floor
@ All reader
If one linked two Twist Drive units (SL to SL) 180 out of, and flattened their in and out curves
(if the force curves are not flattened, the peaks are out of synchronization) then ...
one would have essentially the same thing as two equal weights, each weight hanging upon the opposite side of a pulley. No OU there.
Similar results would be had in linking two TD units one RO as output the other RO as input (180 out). No OU there either.
The TD is perhaps half of an equation for net gain in work from magnets. Two out of 4 interactions, needed.
floor
Hi Floor:
That has been the catch in the use of magnets. They play a roll in many things today. But when you try and use them to make an all magnet motor, it always seems to be a sticky spot or you wind up with a null effect. But I still love to play with them. One day, one of us will hit the mark. And then we will ride.
thay
Helo floor,japanese inventor Kango Iida his hydraulic converter US4464095,original based for two ccw/cw wind/water force paddles
Instead wind/water now permant magnet converter as ccw and cw orientation forces source ?
FEMM-simulation study ?
With my best regard
OCWL
p.s.: probably some will find "hidden options" in use from ccw DC motor and cw DC motor and/or ccw AC motor and cw AC motor couple
@ lankaIV
"Helo floor,japanese inventor Kango Iida his hydraulic converter US4464095,original based for two ccw/cw wind/water force paddles
Instead wind/water now permant magnet converter as ccw and cw orientation forces source ?
FEMM-simulation study ?"
thanks
I've been reviewing some old materials here.
I am heading back into the the magnetic shielding stuff.
@ https://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/
and then checking out CITFTA new topic @ https://overunity.com/18506/possible-magnet-motor-research-ideas/
I'll come back to the Twist Drive some times in the future, I'm sure. I don't have a hope of it, in itself developing into an OU device, but it sure has been / is a good study / learning device.
Regards
floor
Thanks Thaelin.
floor
No O.U. in the all magnet twist drive.
An input of about 80 grams (average force) on the "SL" sliding unit,
over 22 increments of linear displacement....
causes the lifting of 135 grams over 42 increments of displacement.
80 x 22 = 1760 work in to 135 x 42 = 5670 work out.
5670 / 1760 = 3.22 times more mechanical work out put than
mechanical work input.
But the process when reversed, has precisely the opposite ratio.
Therefore during a full cycle operation the work in to work out
cancels.
No net gain !
Something similar could be done with springs and levers.
Note... I say similar but not identical.
1. In loaded spring designs I have examined, there is a spring / force, loading
present in that part of the unit (which is analogous to the SL magnet / linear
motion unit) which does not exist / is not present, in the magnet rather than springs,
builds / design.
2. The magnets, if electromagnets and unlike springs, can be switched on and off.
Full cycle operation could then be O.U..
best wishes
floor
Note..
It is only my opinion that electromagnet use, can yield an O.U. result.
Energy input in electric form, would need to be measured as expended in
either one or two electromagnets.
One electrical input, if a single electromagnetic coil (no core ?) is used along
with one permanent magnet.
or
Two electrical inputs supplying two electromagnets (both with cores).
The mechanical energy input upon a single one of those magnets (the SL)
must also be included as joules of input energy.
It remains at this point, that the calculating of joules per second (power) is not
necessary in to determining the energy input to energy output ratio.
It is not my intention at this time, to do those explorations / measurements.
best wishes
floor
To hell with the electromagnet ideas.
I stumbled on a fix for GoToLuc's torque amplifier.
See the jpg file below. Very simple, wow.
I call it luc's times 1/2, times 4
note that shoud be flush not fush
floor
This is Luc's original design
at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqaf9a9hJAg
At first the original may seem identical to this modification, but
its not.
floor
Ah Floor you got me hooked again. I made a rapid prototype and it works an has a great escape. I used 1 mag on the pendulum and 2 on an arm with travel stop limits and it works the same as GOTOLUC. Then I removed the mags and the pendulum swings free so there is a bit of a stick spot but not a fully stuck spot.
Now as I have said before great ideas but where are the measurements that tell the final story.
I had 2 sets of magnets with different gaps between them to see if I could reduce the travel of the input work of the pendulum and it seemed to have more sticky spot to overcome.
Norman
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=DE&NR=102004043007A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20060330&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=DE&NR=102004043007A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20060330&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP)
The model can be made available to the patent office as proof of functionality. 8) wysiwyg
What you see is what you get.
@ Hooked again...
Once a dancer always a dancer.
1. The effortless pass through.....
when the magnets are centered to one another....
is an easy one, as long as you keep every thing true / not flexing out
of square in any way.
2. The pass through which is near to the end of the magnet walks a very fine line,
in terms of positioning.
It is the balancing the forces between 4 poles (1,2,3,4).
1/2 of the end / edge of the shifting magnet (1)...
with
1 of the vertical broad faces of the input magnet (2).
and
the top side / broad face of the shifting magnet (3)
with
the other vertical face of the input magnet (4)
If the "flushness" of the two magnets is off in one direction by very very little,
there is one effect, if its off in the other there is another effect.
Either effect interferes with the ease of the pass through.
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
in Luc's design
One magnet is the shifting magnet (output).
The other magnet is the pendulum magnet (input)
In luc's design
The pendulum magnet glides over the shifting magnet while flush aligned to
one of the shifting magnets edges.
Then the shifting magnet shifts until its corner / edge is centered below the
the pendulum magnets edge. Too far !
The pendulum magnet then exits away from the shifting magnet while the center of
its edge rides over the corner / edge of the shifting magnet.
ok ?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Problems...
1. Luc's pendulum magnet is approaching the shifting magnet in an arc.
Its entrance into the shifting magnet's field, ALONG THE PLAIN OF THAT ARC
is against magnetic repulsion.
If the arc and radius of the pendulum were very very large this force would be very very small.
Its not.
2. Had the approach of the input magnet been along the plane of the shifting magnet's broad face,
it is / it would have been almost without magnetic resistance.
3. Luc's pendulum magnet exits after having a maximum output travel by
the shifting magnet. This seems to maximize out put. But the sacrifice in
input, as the work to then remove the pendulum magnet, makes that gain into
a loss.
4. The output magnet needs to exit from over the shifting magnet, while it is
centered above it.
5. Don't use a pendulum unless it radius is maybe 15 or 20 feet.
regards
floor
Floor is right about the alignments and adjustments. I made a quick and dirty one with clamps everywhere for easy adjustments and tweaked it several times. It might take me a couple days to get measurements. The mags have opposite polarities up and there are stops to limit travel. And the single magnet is input and has a left and right pivot on a 12in arc and the 2 mags are the output and have a pivot/arc off to the right and out of camera range that move toward and away from the camera. So there can be output in both directions without the loss of a reset to repeat.
See the photo. Norman
Don't use a pendulum unless the distance from the pivot point
to the arc it swings is 15 or 20 FEET.
I have referred to Luc's wheel as a pendulum. But it is a wheel.
There really is no point to using a wheel.
1. Because the arc is a problem, unless it has a very large curvature (explained above).
https://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg556740/#msg556740
2. Continuous motion in order to conserve momentum would only
be beneficial if
the length of time that the input magnet is over the shifting magnet
is a long enough time period
for the shifting magnet to complete its motion.
That is to say
the length of time for the output
and then once again or later,
the length of time for the output magnet to reset / return.
... ... ...
This would require a long magnet. depending upon both,
how quickly the shifting magnet's strokes occur,
and
how slow the input magnet travels
Force is neutral one plane when the magnets are centered, but IN TWO LINES
upon that plain.
BUT although
The forces are neutralized in one plain when the input magnet
is at the end of the output magnet, that neutralization is in
ONE LINE ONLY.
then fortunately
Force is neutral along the line of travel which we desire it to be.
The drawings below give most of the force directions, but do not
include / detail this last quality.
here is a brief video demontration
please see for your self, some of the proofs and principles demonstrated.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978
best wishes
floor
Here are some measurements...
In the video,
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978
Those are fair quality magnets.
More than 1,200 grams of force (easily) can be generated between the
three of them.
The spaceing between the inner magnet and either of the outer magnets
is less than 1/32 inch or 0.79375mm.
It is less than 1/16 inch total.
Probably actually closer to 1/32 inch total.
In this configuration and
even at that close distance, the force needed to slide the inner magnet into
or out from, between the outer magnets
is less than 5 grams force
when the approach / exit is a 90 degree angle.
As an aside...
I would like to take a moment to thank gotoluc,
for his enthusiasm, diligence and the many hours of effort he put into
his experimentations.....
and for taking so well, some of the hard knocks he received from some of
the participants during his presentations.
Disappointments are hard to take some times, and those hard knockers were
disappointed. Cut them some slack if you will Luc.
We learned a great deal from the Luc builds. It was very very valuable to us.
Thanks again.
floor
FLOOR, I CONCUR. GOTOLUC HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AN INSPIRATION TO MY
NEVER GIVING UP ON THIS QUEST FOR THE HOLY GRAIL OF OVERUNITY.
Thanks seychelles
These are the diagram / details of the forces when the two magnets are flush
at their ends (polarities must be observed)
JPG ATTACHED BELOW
OK, here is where I am now. I have not gotten good measurements anywhere near those posted by Floor. But basically if you take 2 like mags and place one flat and the other vertical at the center of the flat magnet there will be attraction to one end and repel to the other end and since it is directly in the middle you can slide the vertical magnet side to side easily - so what. That will become the sticky spot escape. So remove the vertical magnet out of range and then slide it toward the attracted side as described above and it will attract and slide toward the center and onward to the far side but stop it in dead center where it is balanced and can easily slid away escape the sticky spot and then you can repeat what I just described and thus free attraction and work out and almost free extraction from the sticky spot so it can be repeated again.
The real measurements are not in grams/mass but in work ie mass x distance.
I am refining those measurements.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on April 13, 2021, 06:05:37 PM
OK, here is where I am now. I have not gotten good measurements anywhere near those posted by Floor. But basically if you take 2 like mags and place one flat and the other vertical at the center of the flat magnet there will be attraction to one end and repel to the other end and since it is directly in the middle you can slide the vertical magnet side to side easily - so what. That will become the sticky spot escape. So remove the vertical magnet out of range and then slide it toward the attracted side as described above and it will attract and slide toward the center and onward to the far side but stop it in dead center where it is balanced and can easily slid away escape the sticky spot and then you can repeat what I just described and thus free attraction and work out and almost free extraction from the sticky spot so it can be repeated again.
The real measurements are not in grams/mass but in work ie mass x distance.
I am refining those measurements.
Norman
Ok Norman, I got ya.
Mass like in grams or kilograms of mass or weight or force .....
times the distance moved.. cool.
Right on.
First measurements.
Less than 5 grams.
5 grams is roughly the threshold of my devices sensitivity.
Below 5 grams and I cant reliably measure without a lot of effort / repeat measurements.
I have to tap on my bench to get a sliding action if the weight or force is
below 5 grams.
I can do that but lets just let 5 grams stand as the input force.
That way I am fudging a little toward a non over unity result.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
First measurements
Pass through, while the magnets are centered, one on edge over the broad face of the
other.
The force is considered as a constant 5 grams over the entire 1 and 7/8 inches.
1 inch = 25.4 millimeters
25.4 millimeters = 0.0254 of a meter
... ... ... ... ... ...
7/8 of an inch = 0.875 inches
0.875 of a inch = 22.225 millimeters
22.225 mm = 0.02222 meters
... ... ... ... ... ...
1 and 7/8 inches = 0.04762 of a meter
... ... ... ... ... ...
1 gram of weight (on earth) = 0.0098066500286389 newtons of force
5 grams of weight (on earth) = 0.0490332501431945 newtons of force
newtons of force time meters = joules of energy or work.
0.049 newtons x 0.04762 meter = 0.00233 joules of work.
first result is 0.00233 joules.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Been busy today.
I should have the rest of the measurements by end of tomarrow.
best wishes
floor
@ all readers
I respectfuly request that other members refrain from
posting in this topic until norman6538 and I have
completed this measurment process.
best wishes
floor
Measurements of gotoluc's device / floor's variation
Parameters part 1
The limit of sensitivity of floor's test bench.
video @
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6va1an
floor
My setup has a vertical magnet moving left and right and the flat magnet moving toward me and away from me. The work out is that flat magnet movement. My work out is dismal - 4 1/4 nuts lifted .6 cm. and the travel distance to get that lift pulling the vertical magnet is 1.5 cm and those 4 1/4 nuts are not enough to overpower the repel at that side of the vertical/flat magnet so my rough measurements say UO - under unity. Yes the escape at the center is easy BUT it takes about 2.5 cm to completely escape the flat magnet.
A rapid prototype tip - I used weights on a string and pulley on a stand that I could move around the floor quickly to test work in/out.
And in the test bed when I move the vertical magnet manually I can see the repel force/resistance by moving the vertical magnet and likewise see the minimal forces when the vertical magnet is aligned at the center of the flat magnet.
The attached photo is a quick and dirty pivot on the left that allowed me to see the attract on the left and the repel on the right. And that repel on the right and attract on the left wants to push the vertical magnet to the left....BUT there is a stick spot on the left but not in the middle . This quick and dirty testbed showed me what I needed to see.
So basically to get useful work out you
1. first have to set the magnets up to harvest that work. - position vertical magnet to the right where there is an opposing repel force requiring some work in.
2. Then you extract that work - the vertical magnet on a pivot slides left
and Next -
3. you have to reset the device to repeat step 1. - if the vertical magnet is at the middle then it will pull away easily but if too far to the left attraction side it will take extra work to pull it away.
Then repeat step 1 by repositioning the vertical magnet.
Norman
As often as I have goaded you to up the precision on your builds
and measurements and if turn about is fair play then....
I guess its my turn now.
I didn't make it far enough to make measurements today.
The table is screwed to the floor.
The table top is reinforced with lumber.
The test bench is mounted to the table.
The test bench is assembled and tuned up.
The test bench rails are leveled in two directions.
I had to tweak the bearing points on the sliding indicator scale needle / pulley.
It was a sticking a little at the low end of the scale. Wood warps some times.
I have a couple of magnets mounted.
I don;t have my weight scales and weight bottles set up yet.
And a few other things yet to do...
Tomorrow...
Two photos below
That's correct Norman, these designs require 3 inputs for every one output.
That is why the inputs need to be very near to zero work against magnetic forces.
@ all readers
I respectfuly request that other members refrain from
posting in this topic until norman6538 and I have
completed this measurment process.
best wishes
floor
The link below is the
MMM "Magnets Motion and Measurement" dust bin.
Users can post
Ideas, suggestions, design modifications, requests, have discussions,
for this topic / at the present time / while Norman and I complete
our tests.
https://overunity.com/18497/floor-sweepings-dust-bin/
Thanks
floor
No measurements to post yet.
A video that explains the test sets
@
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x80nhtf
@ all readers
I respectfuly request that other members refrain from
posting in this topic until norman6538 and I have
completed this measurment process.
... ... ... ... ... ...
The link below is the
MMM "Magnets Motion and Measurement" dust bin.
Users can post
Ideas, suggestions, design modifications, requests, have discussions,
for this topic / at the present time / while Norman and I complete
our tests.
https://overunity.com/18497/floor-sweepings-dust-bin/
When I realized one of my inputs, was not going to be a near zero,
(Norman called it right) I went for some quick and sloppy measurements.
total out 144 units
total in 140.6 units
No O.U. here.... this is well within my sloppy margin of error
at 325 grams balances at center
at 360 grams 1/16 = 0.0625 1/16 0 = 0 685 /2 = 342
at 460 grams 1/16 = 0.0625 1/8 820 /2 = 410
at 500 grams 1/16 = 0.0625 3/16 960 / 2 = 480
at 575 grams 1/32 = 0.03125 7/32 1075 / 2 = 537.5
at 675 grams 1/64 = 0.01562 15/64 1250 / 2 = 625
at 700 grams 1/64 = 0.01562 16/64 = 0.25 1375 / 2 = 687.5
0.25 total displacement
7/8 - 3/8 = 4/8 = 1/2
1/2 / 2 = 1/4 or 0.25
342 x 0.0625 = 21.375
410 x 0.0625 = 25.625
480 x 0.125 = 60
537.5 x 0.03125 = 16.797
625 x 0.01526 = 9.5375
687.5 x 0.01526 = 10.49
144 total output
1 7/8 x 5 = 9.375
1 7/8 x 70 = 131.25
9.375 + 131.25 = 140.625 total input
Next.....
peace out
floor
Thanks Floor for sticking in there.
I really wish I had been wrong.....
I learned this stuff way back with the Echlin motor that had 2 sides ie double the attraction/sticky spot.
I won't be doing much now that the outside weather is good unless my magnet addiction rises up again before cold weather.
Norman
We will see you when we see you.
@all readers
The same two magnets were used in all the measurement sets.
One more photo below...
My assesment of the forces as "no net force" in the drawing @
https://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg556782/#msg556782
was in error
The force when accurately measured was an average of about 70 grams over the
length of the travel.
But I was pretty sure that I already knew how to fix that as of a 2 days ago...
Still and all....
I had to finish / measure the design as presented (maintain the topic's continuity of flow).
Here is the fix. It is work from magnets...
or
O.U. if that's what is appropriate to call it...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Insertion of a magnet into another magnetic field without
doing work against that field, yes it's real.
Luc's force, yes it's real.
Removal of a magnet from another magnetic field without
doing work against that field, yes it's real.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
I put this "array" on the test bench today and output magnet,
insertion or removal, both work beautifully, at either end (start or finish).
floor
Its been on the test bench and insertion and or removal of the out put
magnet is > 5 grams at either end (start end or finish end of output travel).
link here at O.U. dot com
https://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg556837/#msg556837
P.S.
this topic is now back open for discussion
floor
1. is the stack underneath really necessary?
2. the text says the magnet travels from left to right (because like poles repel on the left and opposite poles attract on the right ) but the red arrow goes right to left.
Is that a mistake?
Norman
1. Yes. The stack underneath is what makes it possible to remove the
output magnet while it is so near to the end of its run.
2. Thanks.
Yes, its a mistake. But not in the way it might seem. The output magnet travels
in the diagram from right to left, like the arrow, not as in the text as was written.
the text is corrected below.
The output magnet must be stopped / manually blocked at that 1/16 inch from
the end on the left, or else the magnetic forces will cause it to travel too far.
Beyond or before that point (1/16 inch from the end), insertion / removal
(most importantly at that end, is removal ) is affected adversely.
At the other end, insertion is adversely affected, if its either side of 1/16 inch.
partial quote
Quote from: Floor on April 16, 2021, 07:32:44 PM
Its been on the test bench and insertion and or removal of the out put
magnet is > 5 grams at either end (start end or finish end of output travel).
correction
That's < 5 grams
floor
The force is considered as a constant < 5 grams over the entire 1 and 7/8 inches
input stroke.
1 inch = 25.4 millimeters
25.4 millimeters = 0.0254 of a meter
... ... ... ... ... ...
7/8 of an inch = 0.875 inches
0.875 of a inch = 22.225 millimeters
22.225 mm = 0.02222 meters
... ... ... ... ... ...
1 and 7/8 inches = 0.04762 of a meter
... ... ... ... ... ...
1 gram of weight (on earth) = 0.0098066500286389 newtons of force
5 grams of weight (on earth) = 0.0490332501431945 newtons of force
newtons of force time meters = joules of energy or work.
0.049 newtons x 0.04762 meter = 0.00233 joules of work.
first result is 0.00233 joules.
BUT IN SIMPLIFYING
If we skip the conversion to joules and just refer to the 3 inputs and the single output
energy as "units" we get
1 7/8 inches x 5 grams = 9.375 units
or
1.875 inches x 5 grams = 9.375 units
There are two inputs like this. One at the starting end for the output stroke and
the other for after the output stroke.
2 x 9.375 units = 18.75 units input
... ... ... ...
The input to re position the output magnet to the start position, along a parallel path (exterior to
the magnetic field) is here considered as 0 units of input.
... ... ... ...
18.75 + 0 = 18.75 units total input.
... ... ...
It should be clear that an out put greater than 18.75 is easy to obtain ?
Our previous test output measured as 144 units total output, the work in to work
out is now 18.75 to 144, and that is O.U.
Note... in this present configuration the actual output is much higher. This is because
of both a longer output stroke and a greater magnetic force over the course of that stroke
best wishes
floor
If anyone thinks the output stroke DIRECTION is incorrectly illustrated (Below),
pick up two magnets and see for your self. I know it might seem strange, that the
magnet would move in that direction, but is does.
best wishes
floor
That's it. An O.U. device on a single page. ;)
I'm tired, see you all later.
peace out
Fantastic Floor.
I do not understand this part
"the input to re position the output magnet to the start position, along a parallel path (exterior to the magnetic field) is here considered as 0 units of input."
But down the road you have enough extra to make a self runner but the "clock mechanism" to do that is complex.
What I wanted to to was to use a small weight to lift a larger output weight and then use some of the output weights to feedback as input leaving extra weights for usable power.. So you can manually move those weights into their positions to do that in order to demonstrate the real work in vs work out and there will be no arguments. Then you can move on to automate it into a self runner.
But first someone needs to verify your setup. Unless I get extra time I doubt I will be that person.
Norman
There are 3 input motions. Basically the output magnet is walked around
3 sides of a square or rectangle, the fourth side the "output side", walks itself.
one side is removal... input
next it moves along to the far end while outside the magnetic field... 0 input
against magnetic forces.
next is in insertion... input
This video shows the motions, although it is of the previous design.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x80nhtf
Its confusing to me as well but here we go.
In the lower right corner of the drawings below....
Written in green letters....
from Position 2....
The output magnet is removed / pulled in the direction of from out of the page
(a near zero input) < 5 grams force
The output magnet is now directly in front of position 2...
How far in front ? Until it is outside of any significant influence of the magnetic field...
Then it is moved to the right....
This is the zero input you were inquiring about...
Now the input magnet is directly in front of position 1...
Insert it back over the magnet array (back into the magnetic field).
(a near zero input) < 5 grams force
Ready for the output stroke....
Quote from: norman6538 on April 17, 2021, 05:44:11 PM
What I wanted to to was to use a small weight to lift a larger output weight and then use some of the output weights to feedback as input leaving extra weights for usable power.. So you can manually move those weights into their positions to do that in order to demonstrate the real work in vs work out and there will be no arguments. Then you can move on to automate it into a self runner.
But first someone needs to verify your setup. Unless I get extra time I doubt I will be that person.
@ Norman
I tend to think in similar terms.
No worries.
@ all readers.
So then,
1.
Self quote
"How far in front ? Until it is outside of any significant influence of the magnetic field"
End of the quote
I measure the distance until it is outside of any significant influence of the magnetic
field as being 1 1/4 inches.
2.
How far is the "? at least a few inches" from the bottom left section of the drawings.
How about 8 inches ?
I think that this distance, (8") will cuase a dead spot in the output force,
near to the center of the output magnets's travel. But that is OK.
... ... ... ...
1.875 inches + 1.25 inches = 3.125 inches
3.125 inches x 5grams = 15.625 input energy units
15.625 units x 2 = 32.25 input energy units
8 inch travel x 5 grams = 40 input energy units
32.25 units + 40 input energy units = 72.25 total energy input units
144 output - 72.25 = 71.75 units gain ?
Next..
Thanks Norman, probably never could have happend with out you.
As Norman6538 sometimes points out, an O.U. of 1 to 1
gets you a self runner, only if the O.U. is after considering
clock works losses.
An O.U. of 2 to 1 will run itself and a second and equal O.U device
as well.
Given that no feed back is needed to run the second device,
it could then power a third device which requires 2 times the
input and delivers 4 time the output, and so on.
All this, only if the O.U. is considered after losses.
.... .... .... .... .... ....
This modified Gotoluc device doesn't actually have a
72.25 : 144 input to output ratio.
It has twice that 144 output. This is because it gets 144 energy units
out at each end of the output magnet's travel..
72.75 : 288 input to out put.
Its not a marginal O.U..
It should be understood that the use of large or very large magnets
in configurations like these, will not work out well. This is because
the strength of magnetic forces decrease rapidly with distance.
In order to get a large energy out put, I recommend the use of multiple
devices rather than a single large device.
floor
I put a set / array of 5 magnets on the test bench yesterday. I will try to give a
good written description rather than doing a drawing at this time.
The assembly..
Each magnet is 1 7/8 inches long by 7/8 of an inch wide.
A magnetic pole is on this broad face.
Each magnet is 3/8 of an inch thick through from pole to pole.....
With the north poles of each magnet facing up, the five magnets
were clamped to a flat surface, edge to edge.
This formed a flat, rectangular single magnetic pole, magnet surface which
measured 4 and 3/8 inches by 1 and 7/8 inches.
I used this surface to see if an out put magnet would travel the entire
length due to "luc's force". It does. Although the luc's force is greatest
near the ends, there is NO DEAD SPOT near the center of length of the travel.
This modified user gotoluc configuration can have a very long output magnet travel length.
THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE OUTPUT, except for the length of this magnet array
which is underneath the output magnet.
floor
Now...
What seems to be to good to be true just might be.
And
I cannot say that absolutely, that at 8 inches of output magnet travel length,
rather than at 4 and 3/8 inches of length, there will be no lull in force
when near the center of travel. I only tried the 4 3/8 inches of travel.
But
I can say that at 4 3/8 inches of output magnet travel, it does appear to me
as though there is no limit to the potential travel distance in this configuration.
If
as in the previous drawings (given again below), a single magnet of 8 inches
length were used instead of those 5 magnets (like poles all facing up), I think
there would be (in fact I know there would be), a lull near to the center of the
output magnet's travel.
Also
In this last test, I used the output magnet in a 90 degrees of rotation orientation.
That is to say, instead of the 1 and 7/8 inches long edge of the output magnet
riding over the array, one of the ends (7/8 inch length) was oriented over the array.
This was because, a strip of wood was used to keep the array magnets from popping
straight up and out from the wooden frame work (clamped to the bench top) surrounding them.
This additional wooden member across the surface of the 5 magnets, reduced the width
available for sliding the output magnet along.
One more thing. If the output travel has a length limitation. this design is still O.U..
floor
Some of the neodymium magnets have an extreme coercivity,
or resistance to demagnetization.
I have heard that two neodymium magnets clamped together in
repulsion will lose only a small percentage of their strength even
after ten years.
But I don't know if this is really true or not.
If someone knows of a reliable information source as to this point
can you please post a link.
floor
Here is what K and J magnetics had to say about it...
Will my neodymium magnets lose strength over time?
Very little. Neodymium magnets are the strongest and most permanent magnets known to man. If they are not overheated or physically damaged, neodymium magnets will lose less than 1% of their strength over 10 years - not enough for you to notice unless you have very sensitive measuring equipment. They won't even lose their strength if they are held in repelling or attracting positions with other magnets over long periods of time.
There are some exceptions (like if the magnets are heated up too much or if the magnets are very thin in the magnetization direction relative to the other dimensions), but in general we've found this to be a good assumption.
Now then, :
Question
"so why don't you just hook the ends of the track to each other ?"
Answer, / question
Which design (A) or (B) ?
Answer
Design (A)
Question
"so why don't you just hook the ends of the track to each other ?"
Answer
Because the magnet gets stuck at either end...
At one end it must be pushed on.
At the other end it must be pulled off.
Unless
The out put magnet's travel is arrested just short of either end of the track.
In which case, It can then be easily removed from the track, along a different direction.
Question
And if you hooked the track end to end ?.
Answer / question
In which case below ?
1. The field gradient could be dominated by a single polarity and constant / equal
in magnitude of force, around the interior of that hole / in line with the
length of the track.
or
2. There could be a bulge in the field at one or more points along that interior.
Which case (1) or (2) ?
Answer
case (2).
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Now we are looking at case (2).
Observation
If there is ONE bulge in the field, we are looking at design (A).
otherwise
If there are TWO or more bulges in the field, we are looking at design (B).
In either design, (A) or (B), I don't know what happens if we hook the ends together.
I have not tried it ! Maybe, with a large enough circle / track diameter, design (B)
would keep going ?
But that doesn't matter
because
both are O.U. without connecting the ends like that.
When the ends ARE NOT connected like that...
one can in a manner "connect them" via a kinetic energy transfer
(it's also, partly a magnetic transfer).
One can allow specific magnetic force balancing to occur (because physical
relocations are allowed to occur).
and like I said...
I DO KNOW, what occurs upon a straight track....
in either design (A) or (B).
Do you ?
Also
I don't want to run around in circles.
smile
I want cyclical work from magnets.
floor
These designs, which are novel, are given into the public domain.
The designs here in, that are novel, are open sourced.
The designs here in, are presented by the internet character many know as floor (Me).
They are the product of, the knowledge, ideas, insights, theories, and so on,
of many many people here at the O.U. forum. But also of Wikipedia, you tube and
so on.
They belong to me and to you.
best wishes
floor
Returning to this assembly (this morning)
Each magnet is 1 7/8 inches long by 7/8 of an inch wide.
A magnetic pole is on this broad face.
Each magnet is 3/8 of an inch thick through from pole to pole.....
With the north poles of each magnet facing up, the five magnets
were clamped to a flat surface, edge to edge.
This forms a flat, rectangular single magnetic pole, magnet surface which
measured 4 and 3/8 inches by 1 and 7/8 inches.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
There are five magnets and therefore there are four junctions.
There is a bump in the field at each of the junctions of the magnets.
(where the edges meet)
At the first junction near an end, the out put magnet transitions the junction well.
A net force is present in the desired output magnet travel direction.
At the second and third junctions there are sticky spots.
At the fourth junction near the far end, the out put magnet transitions the junction well.
A net force is present in the desired output magnet travel direction.
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
There is a lull in desired output magnet force, near the center of the
output stroke, when a single magnet serves as the track.
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
There are sticky spots in the desired output magnet travel, when multiple magnets serve
as the track.
... ... ... ... ... ...
Oh well / bummer. Looks like no spinny thingy here, nor perpetual motion.
Just cyclical work with a net gain, from magnets . Darn.
The next thing to put on the bench should
be either of the following.
Complete, and all four actions measured.
Note... there is no 1/16 set back, in the above drawing,
(as was shown as in the previous drawing)
My next test / set up, may have some variations in the
magnet set backs / placements.
Also I have a request...
that others weigh in on the following question...
"should I follow through with this process"
floor
There are about 220 views of this topic a day on average (it's small).
It's not monetized (by me).
If my goal had been large numbers of views,
I am pretty sure there would have been many millions of views
by now.
There are 4 tested and measured variations of these designs,
in which magnet interactions give rise to a net gain in mechanical
work done.
There are several other designs I have never done precise measurements of.
This latest build will be the first time I will have done a complete
public presentation of the measurement processes and results, of an O.U.
device.
... ... ... ... ... ...
In considering the energy density and the natural resources required
to produce energy from magnets on a large scale, it is readily apparent that
they are not a sole answer to our future energy needs. Only a part of that solution.
... ... ... ... ... ...
What is more significant than permanent magnet energy sources, is what kind of
energy source can next evolve from an understanding of the permanent magnet
sources.
That would be next on my agenda. I'll leave the magnets behind. I think some
number of others, have already arrived at some of those methods. Others are
I think close. But they may not be totally certain within their selves, at to
whether or not they really want to arrive at those methods.
Me to.
So...
I'm looking for some feed back / reason to proceed.
Got any ?
floor
Over Unity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEpfvTdR5-U
best wishes
floor
I'll do more tests before I build the fixtures.
3 minute video.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x80z9wr
If the track can be long enough,
after extraction, insertion and repositioning to the start position
of the output magnet (even at considerable energy expenditure)
this is still O.U..
After the video, click here
https://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg556715/#msg556715
to jump back a few pages, to the start of this particular design / investigation.
floor
observation...
One reason and probably the main reason, I was having
sticky spots in the "track" array was unevenly matched
track array magnet strengths.
While I was making this last video,
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x80z9wr (3 minutes long)
I was expecting a sticky spot if / when the output magnet is almost touching
the output magnet array.
The lack of a sticky spot in the output magnet action caught me off guard /
surprised me.
The only sticky spot, occurred when the output magnet caught
on the edge of one of the track array magnets.
So, once again, inconsistency in magnet strengths has caused me some
confusion in determining results. Ha.
floor
Observations...
Here are some of the common characteristics in the magnet interactions in
these designs (with some exceptions).
.... .... .... .... ...; .... ....
1.
Interactions, the motions, input and output, are limited to specific
directions in relationship to the line of the magnet, magnetic polar axis.
These directions of motion are always in some increment of 90 degrees.
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
2. A near to balance between magnetic attractions and repulsions is arrived
at / created, in one or more planes.
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
3. Sliding / rolling track systems prevent motions which would otherwise be
caused by some of the magnetic forces present, while also facilitating motions
along other lines.
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
4. Changes in magnet positions occur, one at a time. Each occurrence of a magnet
motion, starts, completes, then ends, before a next motion occurs.
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
5. There is a repeating cycle.
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
6. There are 3 input actions for every 1 output action.
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
7. There is a point in the cycle in which a relaxation of / near disappearance of forces
occurs.
best wishes
floor
Before I follow through with these particular measurement sets...
I need to build some special fixtures / modify my test bench.
because
1.
I'll need to quick change / remove the ceramic magnets from the "track" between
measurement sets (they will demagnetize / change each other if I leave them in
place for very long).
2. I need to set up to maximize the travel length on the test bench sliding unit.
3. I need to build some test bench attachments / fixtures.
So.....
before I do that...
I want to do / finish the measurements @
https://overunity.com/18551/magnet-shear-to-direct-pull-work-ratio/msg548052/#msg548052
(while the test bench is still set up like it is now.)
best wishes
floor
Still working on the other project...
This magnet device / method tested out as more mechanical work out
than in.
@
https://overunity.com/18551/magnet-shear-to-direct-pull-work-ratio/msg557293/#msg557293
I found that the patent has expired. Users should verify that for their self.
I will be back to this topic tomorrow.
floor
This build of this GoToLuc design modification begins at this point
(below) in the topic...
@
https://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg556715/#msg556715
This is only a few pages back.
I don't know how far I'll get with this today, but Maybe pretty far ?
best wishes
floor
Made good progress today..
Jpg / photo below
Hello
If you modified this a bit it could go. I'll print a model. For this arrangement.
greeting
"Magnet shear to direct pull work ratio" (overunity.com) (https://overunity.com/18551/magnet-shear-to-direct-pull-work-ratio/msg557527/#new)
Lota
Hello Lota
Keep in mind.
1. The shapes of the magnets used have effects upon
these types of interactions.
2. Magnets of the same physical dimensions sometimes have
more variation in their field strengths than one might expect.
This has given me troubles on more than one occasion.
3. There are forces present in undesirable directions. I recommend to
any one, that they should become familiar with those other force vector potentials
first, in order to build so as to compensate / withstand them.
4. I recommend starting a topic for presenting your build, when you are ready.
best wishes
floor
Hello
I already had a model with a crankshaft. It looked quite good. The force must be stored between and several magnets offset arranged.
I designed this with SAM Simulator. This allows you to simulate curves and gearboxes.
greeting
Lota
https://nolte-nc-kurventechnik.homepage.t-online.de/rechen_koppelgetriebe2.gif
1. Did you see my last post ?
2. I'm working on and presenting an other design here
at this topic.
3. Do you understand this ?
4. The design given in your GIF animation is not quite there /
not quite the right lines of motion.
5. I will give my feed back in another topic if you wish / if you start one.
best wishes
floor
I'm going to request to lock this topic
but
continue it in a different thread
As
"modified gotoluc design "
@
https://overunity.com/18866/modified-gotoluc-design/msg557639/#msg557639
best wishes
floor
@ Lota
Please continue with your project.
I look forward to seeing it unfold.
best wished
floor