Overunity.com Archives

I stumbled across this link. Interesting reading, but is it legit?
Please share your views on this.
https://www.powerelectronics.com/alternative-energy/new-discovery-could-lead-commercial-production-permanent-magnet-motors


Vidar

  "New discovery"

I     don't    doubt that they have a permanent magnet motor.

I do however, doubt that its basic operating methods and principles can be patented.

Probably their patents and many other patents could and will spin off of those underlying methods.

Whether or not these researchers are aware of it
              Those methods and principles can be found    open sourced    here at the OU forum.

                 floor

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/dd/92/2c/f6a7092faa7487/US20110198958A1.pdf

Hi Low-Q. I don't understand what is being said in that article. If there is an attraction and repulsion force at the same time, don't they cancel each other out?

Quote from: MagnaProp on September 27, 2018, 03:48:17 AM
Hi Low-Q. I don't understand what is being said in that article. If there is an attraction and repulsion force at the same time, don't they cancel each other out?

I think the idea is that when they combine equatorial forces and polar forces, they can "switch" from attraction to repulsion without external energy.


Say you have two magnets in parallell. N up, S down on both, these magnets will repel eachother equatorially because both magnets have the same polarity next to them. If you move one magnet down, the horizontal repulsion forces decrease in the equatorially, and the vertical attraction force increase in the polar plane because N of the moved magnet is approaching S on the other magnet. Until a point where the equatorial repulsion is the same as the polar attraction force. At this point you can separate or approach the magnets without input energy. At this position, the switching takes place.
See the figures how the magnets are positioned.


They claim that these two forces can work together when the magnets are positioned in a given way. I do, however, have my doubt about the practical experiment, and question how they can manage to make this work as a free energy device. It's not a question about the engineering part, but the actual outcome that is based on the desired function.


I have myself spent many, many hours, actually years, figuring out how and why mangnets do what they do. Countless designs that has proven non-workable devices. Tried this, tried that untill the brain overloads.


Vidar

I am building a very simple device that I think will "work" on the same principle, but a rotary one.
Simulations in FEMM does not provide any meaningful results, so I build one just to understand how equatorial and polar forces works together. In 5 hours the 3D printer is finished with the first parts that is supposed to support the magnets. Different tests will be done, but I cannot promise videos, but pictures would do for the initial exprriments.


Vidar

Thanks for the info. I have some little cube magnets in my hands now. If I bring them close to each other horizontally, with a vertical off set so that one cube is above the other, them are attracted to each other. I feel slight repulsion as they get really close together, pushing them apart vertically slightly, before the attraction is strong enough to make them snap together. I don't see how that slight repulsion help us?

Looking forward to your build images. Thanks again for the help in understanding what is going on here.

Study HJ's work.  Study Steve Kundel's work.  Study Qin Gang's work.

It don't get much simpler than that.

Far too many researchers have focused solely upon making a rotary system powered solely by PM interaction...

Including myself back in the day.

It clicked for me when I saw that copious field changes could be had for next to naught.

Ever see the movie: "Safety Not Guaranteed"?

Funny show.

Isn't that the MEG principle of switching?

Quote from: Jimboot on September 28, 2018, 12:39:52 AM
Isn't that the MEG principle of switching?

MEG came after decades of others

LowQ

QuoteI am building a very simple device that I think will "work" on the same principle, but a rotary one.
Simulations in FEMM does not provide any meaningful results, so I build one just to understand how equatorial and polar forces works together.

I have also found simulations basically useless and a waste of time vs reality.

QuoteIn 5 hours the 3D printer is finished with the first parts that is supposed to support the magnets. Different tests will be done, but I cannot promise videos, but pictures would do for the initial exprriments.

I have found "what we think" is of little relevance relative to "how we think" which concerns the logic and reason behind our thinking.

So we have two magnets which supposedly repel along a vertical line while attracting along a horizontal line... now what?. Science, a method of inquiry, says we should determine "what" the real forces are between the magnets "where" they act on one another. So we should build a disk holding the upper magnet (M1) which allows it to move along a horizontal plane over the lower magnet(M2). We then measure the vertical and horizontal forces on each magnet M1 and M2 with a $3 force sensor such as this DF9-40 High Pressure Sensor Resistance-type Thin Film Force Sensor Waterproof. Next we would use a gear stepper motor to rotate the disk along the horizontal plane and measure the current input and a servo to move the plane of the disk vertically.

Now we have two magnets and one magnet M1 can move accurately along a plane and we can measure the forces... now what?. We could dork around for months or we could use our head and let a $10 computer like an Arduino Uno do all the hard stuff for us. It's a computer, it computes stuff, so we should let it do what it does best.

Now we apply some logic and reason:
Our variables are Magnet M1 forces Vertical V1 and Horizontal H1, Magnet M2 forces are V2 and H2, the disk input current is I1 and the disk stepper motor position P1, the servo position for the disk S1.

Our reason and logic:
If the current I1 to the stepper motor increases the motor is acting against a force and if I1 decreases the motor is acting with a force. Obviously the goal is to look for a force which acts with us on magnet M1 decreasing I1 more than it acts against us increasing I1.

So we rotate the disk with the stepper motor measuring it's horizontal position P1 and its vertical position with S1 within a 3D space and we measure the forces on M1 and M2. Now we follow the logic...

We are looking for a decreasing value of I1 and forces on M1-M2 as M1 approaches M2. We are also looking for a decreasing value of I1 and increasing forces on M1-M2 as M1 moves away from M2. So we measure the rate at which a variable changes by measuring the amount and direction of change from one position of P1 to the next position. So we tell the Arduino to change P1 through 360 degrees of disk rotation at servo position S1 then change the position of S1 (P1=P1+1, if P1=360 then S1=S1+S1).

As P1 goes through 360 degrees and S1 through it's range we don't record all the variables and try to graph it because that's very time consuming and absurd. We teach the Arduino how to recognize what were looking for... so what is it we are looking for again?. Decreasing values of I1, decreasing forces as M1 approaches M2 and increasing forces as M1 leaves M2. So if M1 and M2 align at P1 180 degrees then we look for decreasing forces to 180 and increasing forces after 180.

P1 (current position) = P2, P1=P1+1(next position of P1), if I1 at P2(last position) < I1 at P1(current position) then I1 is decreasing in value indicating the direction of the change. We can do this for the vertical and horizontal forces on M1 and M2 as well to indicate the direction of the change. Thus we can begin to formulate a logical plan as to how our Arduino should act. We can use the same kind of logic as MPPT, maximum power point tracking.

Our Arduino can then "look" for the path of least resistance when M1 approaches M2 at P1 180 degrees all by itself. It can also look for a path which produces the maximum force on M1 as it leaves M2 all by itself. When the current input I1 reduces to zero and the stepping motor acts as a generator more often than not then we have found our answer. Why would we spend countless hours doing experiments changing variables and countless hours trying to sort out what the data is telling us when a $10 computer can crunch all the numbers and tell us exactly what works or not and how to do it?.

This shines a new light on all our experiments doesn't it?, where we can have a computer look for patterns in the measured variables as they change and then change the variables in such a direction as to always move towards our goal then tell us how it did it. As I said how we think and the method of reasoning behind our thoughts is often more much important than any given belief or opinion which cannot be justified in reality. It's called Metacognition which is the awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes... not what we think but why and how.

I said permanent magnets have overunity because their field is asymmetric, they have two poles. Every asymmetric field can do work. And i showed it with experiments here. But the overunity in them is not enough to overcome friction. I know how much overunity they have and this is not much, thus all the claims of powerful motors using permanent magnets are beyond doubt hoaxes.

ayeaye

QuoteI said permanent magnets have overunity because their field is asymmetric, they have two poles. Every asymmetric field can do work. And i showed it with experiments here. But the overunity in them is not enough to overcome friction. I know how much overunity they have and this is not much, thus all the claims of powerful motors using permanent magnets are beyond doubt hoaxes.

I mapped the fields within a 3D space and the fields are symmetric but non-uniform which is not the same thing. Your claim is also false because you do not know the COP, nobody does. This is true because the COP is dictated by a force acting over a distance as well as the rate at which the force or distance changes. The rate of change or field cycle rate can have almost any value thus so can the COP as a whole.

Obviously they are not all hoaxes just because you do not seem to know what your doing because that would mean your own ignorance must somehow magically affect all the other inventors dragging them down to your level. You don't honestly think your own beliefs can magically affect everyone else do you because that's a clear sign of mental disorders in my opinion.

A field that has two poles is definitely not symmetric. A typical symmetric field is spherical.

Definition of symmetrical:

symmetrical  (sɪmetrɪkəl )   adjective If something is symmetrical, it has two halves (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/halve) which are exactly (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/exactly) the same, except that one half (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/half_1) is the mirror (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mirror) image (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/image) of the other.   ...the neat rows of perfectly symmetrical windows. Synonyms: balanced (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/balanced), regular (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/regular), proportional (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/proportional), in proportion   More Synonyms of symmetrical (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/symmetrical#symmetrical__1)  symmetrically (sɪmetrɪkl ) adverb [ADVERB with verb] The south garden at Sissinghurst was composed symmetrically.

By this definition a symmetrical object does NOT have to be spherical.

 

Yes, what concerns field then, the two poles of the magnetic field, when one attracts, then the other repulses. This is not mirror image, if it were mirror image, then either both attract, or both repulse.

The interaction between two magnets is something that has been tested by many and every test that I have made indicates that it cannot work because the fields are circular and all forces are accounted for in any direction.
I have recently found something that has not been covered in this forum and I'm very excited about what it may result in.

It also gave me a new insight into a new all magnet motor design that just might also be possible using this concept. I'm not going to post the new concept until I can verify that this concept has good merit but I will say that I have the first prototype fully constructed except for the ceramic bearings that were lost in the mail.

When the repulsion of magnets is used to rotate magnet out of sticky point in a clever way then it may self-run.

Lumen

QuoteThe interaction between two magnets is something that has been tested by many and every test that I have made indicates that it cannot work because the fields are circular and all forces are accounted for in any direction.
I have recently found something that has not been covered in this forum and I'm very excited about what it may result in.

The magnetic far field is generally circular not unlike electric fields but not the near field, it is not circular in any science textbook unless the magnet is circular. So anyone who has actually read a science textbook should know better than to make false statements that the field is circular in every case... it is not.

Regarding "something that cannot work", everything we know today was thought impossible 1000 years ago. Everyone said that cannot work, it is impossible and as we know all the critics were completely wrong about almost everything. Thus in a very real sense the critics own ignorance to the facts becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for them which is why they never accomplish anything of substance. They are what we call losers in layman's terms because history has shown they generally always lose. They are always saying you cannot do that... but someone always does.

As well many critics like to take everything out of context and move the goal posts. Logically it may be very difficult to take two magnets and have them move or interact in such a way as to produce excess work or energy. However we know an external field from a coil can manipulate a permanent magnetic field. As such if the work to manipulate a field is less than the work the manipulated fields produce then extra work is possible. The mistake most people make is in thinking they somehow know or understand every conceivable way in which the fields could interact. There are literally millions of possible combinations of interactions thus we can presume most critics are wrong which is most often the case.

The fact is we do not know, that is the only correct answer... we do not know yet but I suspect we will soon.

One mistake I see many people making is using large iron cored coils with permanent magnets. We were taught that an iron core concentrates an external magnetic field. Which begs the question, why in the hell would we want to concentrate the external PM field within the coil when we know the coils magnetic field must then overcome this concentrated field to have an effect?. It's like saying I want to go faster in my car so let's ride the brakes for a bit while were at it.

At which point we can begin to see normal is not really normal in any sense of the word. Creating more problems and more complexity due to our own lack of understanding is not normal. Logically we would want a coil which is invisible to the PM field until we want to produce an interaction and only then would the coil interact. We would want to guide or change the field structure or geometry in some way which benefits us in some way. Normally, people should think about what they are doing rather than just do what everyone else is doing without thinking.

If we want to learn something then we need to think about every action we take. Ask ourselves why am I doing this in this particular way?, to what end?, is this the best way?, what other ways are there which may give a different result?. Just doing something because everyone else does it is obviously a lesson in stupidity because we already know the result... it's always the same. Everything must be questioned on every level every step of the way.

The patent which I've referenced earlier gives exact measurement data.
They indicate, that there was a net gain of the energy of approximately 20 %.
It also even provides some dimensions of the magnets and  an interesting design
of the set up of two magnets with springs.
The sprigs  work as an energy storage, allowing completing the cycle.

I used to think that power could be generated in a symmetric field like the homopolar generator is thought to operate, or how the homopolar motor is thought to operate, but in fact neither operates as thought.

Once you know how they actually operate, things become more understandable and there is new insight into how the field must be controlled in any attempt to build a magnet motor.

Quote from: lumen on October 02, 2018, 03:01:51 PM
I used to think that power could be generated in a symmetric field like the homopolar generator is thought to operate, or how the homopolar motor is thought to operate, but in fact neither operates as thought.

Once you know how they actually operate, things become more understandable and there is new insight into how the field must be controlled in any attempt to build a magnet motor.

Can you shed some light on how they actually work?

Quote from: telecom on October 02, 2018, 03:22:17 PM
Can you shed some light on how they actually work?

Yes, in fact you can also do some tests to prove it to yourself.
Look at a homopolar motor, like the ones on youtube using a battery and a magnet with a piece of wire.
The wire is not moving because it's in a uniform field but because it's trying to move to the edge of the entire magnet.

Proof #1: While keeping the battery polarity the same and holding the wire stationary while the device is lightly suspended you will see the magnet spins in the opposite direction of what the wire did. This shows that the magnet is simply the rest of the conductor that forms a loop.
So by attaching a very thin wire (thin magnet wire works well) to some heavier conductors and forming the same loop you will see the loop bend just like the conduction path of the homopolar motor.

Proof #2: Place a large ring magnet on a slippery surface and bring another thin magnet on edge close to one side of the ring magnet. The response is the ring magnet slides but has no tendency to rotate. This is because the only action is when the force works to push or pull the field from the magnet face and not along the uniform field.

Proof #3: When a magnet is spinning on it's axis there is no drag (work done) when a any object is brought near it like a copper plate or another magnet or coil.

The only thing that makes that homopolar motor run is the interaction of the separate conductors acting near the poles of a magnet and not any force generated or related to the uniform field of the magnet.

They analysed forces between permanent magnets but not the work. Only ∫F.dl is significant. As the magnetic flux is conservative (according to conventional Maxwell electromagnetism), work is conserved over a cycle. If they have a real experimental setup that works, it can't be explained by conventional Maxwell electromagnetism and therefore the explanation they give is not correct.
Same remark applies to US patent 2011/0198958: if a permanent magnet motor works, a new theory is needed, the old one being not relevant for explaining this fact, question of pure internal consistency of the conventional theory.
So we have to wait for the experimental evidence.

I can't find  US patent 2011/0198958

Here is the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110198958A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110198958A1/en)

and a picture of the test device. I also attached (below pic) a full size zip file of the picture as it's too large for the page.

Regards
Luc

Hi Luc, glad to hear  from you!
Have you tried that set up?

F6flt

QuoteThey analysed forces between permanent magnets but not the work. Only ∫F.dl is significant. As the magnetic flux is conservative (according to conventional Maxwell electromagnetism), work is conserved over a cycle.

The work component relates to change, flux can be conserved yet change in many ways. Whenever a permanent magnet moves flux is conserved yet the field changes within a space.

QuoteIf they have a real experimental setup that works, it can't be explained by conventional Maxwell electromagnetism and therefore the explanation they give is not correct.

Speculation because your assuming it can't be explained simply because you don't understand it. Which begs the question...is everything you do not understand un-explainable and a violation of the laws of physics and the conservation of energy?. I think it's a little woo woo how the critics say they believe in the conservation of energy yet the moment they see something they do not understand they are always the first to say it must have been violated?. Obviously they do not believe it or not understand it.

QuoteSame remark applies to US patent 2011/0198958: if a permanent magnet motor works, a new theory is needed, the old one being not relevant for explaining this fact, question of pure internal consistency of the conventional theory.

A new theory does not imply a violation of physics or a violation of the conservation of energy. We could easily build a new theory by applying the laws we have in a different way using new insight, we do it all the time in science.

QuoteSo we have to wait for the experimental evidence.

Wait?, why?.

Quote from: telecom on October 03, 2018, 01:43:11 PM
Have you tried that set up?

No, I just noticed the topic a few days ago. I'm busy with other things so don't plan on trying but it looks interesting.
Maybe this would be of interest to user name Floor?  looks right up his alley.

Regards
Luc

Quote from: gotoluc on October 03, 2018, 02:35:47 PM
No, I just noticed the topic a few days ago. I'm busy with other things so don't plan on trying but it looks interesting.
Maybe this would be of interest to user name Floor?  looks right up his alley.

Regards
Luc

I thought it was you work at the picture.
In this case, where that image came from?
Regards

Quote from: telecom on October 03, 2018, 02:52:24 PM
where that image came from?

It came from a webpage I found that's related to the inventor Dr. Kenneth Kozeka

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kedron-energy-demonstrates-a-new-discovery-to-produce-a-motor-driven-by-permanent-magnets-alone-300545369.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kedron-energy-demonstrates-a-new-discovery-to-produce-a-motor-driven-by-permanent-magnets-alone-300545369.html)

Here is Dr. Kenneth Kozeka webpage but does not contain that picture: http://www.kedronenergy.com/ (http://www.kedronenergy.com/)
Here is his video but nothing is demonstrated, only promotion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUFSgD6q1dI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUFSgD6q1dI)

Luc

I have done many magnet interaction tests on CNC machines to find any difference in energy between two paths to a common point and have found nothing over about 3% which is easily within error margin.

So I'd be very surprised if anyone has found a way to do useful work by such actions alone.

There are also many patents that do not work and have never been tested. The only requirement for a patent is money.

Quote from: gotoluc on October 03, 2018, 03:04:30 PM

It came from a webpage I found that's related to the inventor Dr. Kenneth Kozeka

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kedron-energy-demonstrates-a-new-discovery-to-produce-a-motor-driven-by-permanent-magnets-alone-300545369.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kedron-energy-demonstrates-a-new-discovery-to-produce-a-motor-driven-by-permanent-magnets-alone-300545369.html)

Here is Dr. Kenneth Kozeka webpage but does not contain that picture: http://www.kedronenergy.com/ (http://www.kedronenergy.com/)
Here is his video but nothing is demonstrated, only promotion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUFSgD6q1dI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUFSgD6q1dI)

Luc

Yes seams to me it's about supporting the huge money makers institutions another rip off by bigots I have seen a few stand alone devices in my time thisd guy does not show it nore is it portable or available as far as i can see.

AG

QuoteI have seen a few stand alone devices in my time thisd guy does not show it nore is it portable or available as far as i can see.

Obviously it is still in development and they are looking for partners to further develop the technology.

I think this kind of technology scares the crap out of the technology trolls because it is cheap and with development will be inherently simple to build. It should also be obvious to even a layman that once the premise is nailed down the technology could also be scaled up or down.

You seem to be very anti-free energy technology... why are you here again?.

@onepower

Sorry to be in a scientific attitude, not a handyman. I "believe" in math, it's pure logic, and math is completely embedded in physics and its definitions of magnetic field, forces, work... I only said that Kozeka's explanation is not correct because Maxwell's electromagnetism math is incompatible with an energy gain in a cycle of permanent magnet movement, whatever their path and motions. And this is true not only for the work of a magnetic force, but for that of any conservative force.
So if we do have an energy gain, either unknown energy is taken where we don't expect it, and that's interesting, or Maxwell's theory is incorrect, the magnetic flux would not be conservative, but for different reasons it's unlikely nevertheless possible.

Dozens of permanent magnet motors have already been patented or promoted for investor research (Minato, Perendev, LLW9...) but if we are here, it's because none of them could be duplicated, and Occam's razor tells us that it is because none of them are working so far.

I saw somewhere but I don't remember where, an experiment with magnets moving face to face, or sliding side by side, with measurements and calculation of the work done. The work was not quite the same for both movements, and could have provided energy over a cycle. The experiment was very rough, I considered that the energy gain was less than the experimental uncertainty on the measurements and I did not attach any importance to it. Now with this new claim, it may need to be explored further.

F6FLT

QuoteSorry to be in a scientific attitude, not a handyman. I "believe" in math, it's pure logic, and math is completely embedded in physics and its definitions of magnetic field, forces, work... I only said that Kozeka's explanation is not correct because Maxwell's electromagnetism math is incompatible with an energy gain in a cycle of permanent magnet movement, whatever their path and motions. And this is true not only for the work of a magnetic force, but for that of any conservative force.
So if we do have an energy gain, either unknown energy is taken where we don't expect it, and that's interesting, or Maxwell's theory is incorrect, the magnetic flux would not be conservative, but for different reasons it's unlikely nevertheless possible.

I see several flaws in your reasoning. First while the math may be logical it is dependent on whether one is considering the right variables and equations or not. Everyone said Earnshaws theorem could not be violated and therefore assumed magnetic levitation was impossible. However a spinning magnetic top can levitate without violation of the theorem because it does not apply. They made false assumptions by applying rules where they have no application. So the math can be correct but not if your asking the wrong questions and making false assumptions... obviously.

Think of it this way, the conservation of energy states energy must be conserved or input equals output. However a heat pump can output six times more energy than the input. This is true because the heat pump does not dissipate the input energy as heat it pumps already existing heat from one place to another. If you did not understand how it worked it would appear as an energy gain and all the math would be incorrect but it's not incorrect... you would be incorrect.

QuoteDozens of permanent magnet motors have already been patented or promoted for investor research (Minato, Perendev, LLW9...) but if we are here, it's because none of them could be duplicated, and Occam's razor tells us that it is because none of them are working so far.

It's dependent on our perspective. If the actual mechanism for gain was never disclosed and it seldom is then logically you do not know how or why it works and could never replicate it. Occam's razor suggests the more probable explanation is the more likely one so let's look at the probabilities.
1) You cannot understand it and do not know how it works and cannot replicate it.
2) The inventor understands it and knows exactly how it works.

In my opinion the more probable explanation is that the person with the most facts making the least assumptions is more likely to be correct. Unfortunately this is not you because you have no facts and obviously do not understand how it works. Occam's razor should never be used from a position of complete ignorance to the facts and that was never its intent.

QuoteOccam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

Simpler is not better that's a populist prostitution of the intent of this principal however the more facts we as individuals have in hand making the least assumptions should be the most likely explanation. Which begs the question... have you done any tests or experiments to prove anything for yourself or relied on mostly unqualified opinions from the internet which are generally 99% BS?.

Case in point, Occam's razor suggest people who fail to produce the desired results due to their own ignorance to the facts are most likely the people we should not be taking advice from. A much better option would be to pay attention to people who have found success. For example are you more likely to believe a mechanic who claims your truck cannot be fixed or the mechanic who just fixed it?... pretty obvious in my opinion.

No offense but I find your sense of reason... unreasonable.

Here is an interesting question, if a PM is in fact an electro-magnet in that each electron orbit locked within any given magnetic domain in itself constitutes a "current loop" then what if any given action/reaction could change the axis of some of the free electron current loops. We are speaking of billions of individual electrons within a PM which move in an orbit which on the most fundamental level constitutes a "path of conduction" does it not?. As above so below and we cannot just ignore the fact that infinitely massive things tend to follow the same laws as infinitely small things whether we understand it or not. If the rules we say we believe apply then they must apply in a universal sense otherwise we are left with contradictions. We must ask the question... what is possible, on what level and to what extent?. Anything less is just boring in my opinion.

Quote from: onepower on October 07, 2018, 12:04:27 AM
F6FLT
I see several flaws in your reasoning. First while the math may be logical it is dependent on whether one is considering the right variables and equations or not.

You should apply your statement to Kozeka, that's exactly what I said about his explanation. There are "flaws in his reasoning" because he considers the right variables and equations to explain an incompatible fact.

Quote
Everyone said Earnshaws theorem could not be violated and therefore assumed magnetic levitation was impossible. However a spinning magnetic top can levitate without violation of the theorem because it does not apply.

I agree with you that Earnshaws' theorem or any other theorem demonstrating impossibility can generally be circumvented. The reason for this is that such a theorem cannot define its field of application without uncertainties or unknowns, which is not the case when the theorem is a positive statement where sufficient elements for the effect can be given.
I rather consider these theorems as challenges (as for the second law of thermodynamics).

However, in our context, it is not at all the same problem ("non sequitur"). I am not saying that Kozeka's device or permanent magnet motors in general cannot work, I am simply saying that his explanation of this particular case is wrong. If Kozeka correctly explained his device, why energy can be extracted from the movement he developed between two points of equal potential magnetic energy despite the conservative force, in the same way that the explanation of rotational magnetic levitation explains the circumvention of Earnshaws' theorem, this would be perfectly acceptable. But he didn't do it.

The past shows us that inventors who provide theoretical explanations that are incompatible with what they claim to have built, do so to give credibility to their inventions through science that they manipulate or do not master. Only people who are unskilled in the field are bluffed. Many investors have fallen into this kind of trap and lost money, as well as DIYers who have wasted their time. So be careful!

Quote
If the actual mechanism for gain was never disclosed and it seldom is then logically you do not know how or why it works and could never replicate it.

Science is the study of what is observable. What is not observable cannot be part of the scientific method. This is why science cannot theorize about the existence of God or the eating habits of the Pink Unicorn.
Whether we imagine the existence of the Pink Unicorn or that of a secret principle of permanent magnet motors hidden for decades is of the same level.
We need observable facts.
When it comes to permanent magnet motors, we don't have them yet.

Quote
...Which begs the question... have you done any tests or experiments to prove anything for yourself or relied on mostly unqualified opinions from the internet which are generally 99% BS?.

Many! In electronics, since the age of 11. That's why I'm very careful now. All the experiments in FE I have done so far (single wire transmission, back emf, SMOT, so-called "scalar waves", Steorn-style parametric motors...) show that everything works according to conventional theories.
I'm looking for loopholes but I haven't found any yet. Most of those who believe they have found them are only surprised by commonplace phenomena that they do not understand.
That's one of the reasons why everyone here still pays for electricity. Wouldn't someone pay it?

Quote
if a PM is in fact an electro-magnet in that each electron orbit locked within any given magnetic domain in itself constitutes a "current loop" then what if any given action/reaction could change the axis of some of the free electron current loops. We are speaking of billions of individual electrons within a PM which move in an orbit which on the most fundamental level constitutes a "path of conduction" does it not?. As above so below and we cannot just ignore the fact that infinitely massive things tend to follow the same laws as infinitely small things whether we understand it or not. If the rules we say we believe apply then they must apply in a universal sense otherwise we are left with contradictions. We must ask the question... what is possible, on what level and to what extent?. Anything less is just boring in my opinion.

Why "if"? A magnet is indeed a set of current loops constituted by electronic spins (for the most part) and to a lesser extent by orbital rotations around atomic nuclei. It has been known since the early 20th century. Moving magnets are indeed billions of billions of billions of charges/spin in motion, and this too has been known since the beginning of the 20th century. When you know the elementary behaviour of a current loop, you just have to integrate on the whole volume to get the overall effect. This can even be done by Einstein's relativity. The magnetic field, for example, is the Lorentz transform of the electric field (and vice versa), between inertial reference frames moving relative to each other. The same facts are explained as well by Maxwell's electromagnetism as by Einstein's relativity. But it's not that simple. We also know that the spin is quantified and that the electron has two spin levels, which can be seen by NMR.
I don't think we have to re-invent the wheel. We have to complete what is known and see beyond, which requires us to know the current state of the art rather than wanting to destroy it because we would not understand it or because it would come from "formatted" academics. The best and more modest method is therefore the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants)

This has just become the most interesting thread on this forum...

Greetings fellow earthlings

I'm satisfied that some of my own tests and measurements demonstrate net work done through permanent magnet interactions.

The principles are so simple that it is almost embarrassment, that It has taken 5 years to arrive at these observations / understandings.

I understand why they should work, how they work and that they in fact do work.

What ever else we can say about, and may have observed in the fields around permanent magnets....

                                              Two statements which are very certain, and  ......................  utterly noncontroversial are .......


1. Between magnets,  there are numerous methods by which we can create a very near balance of attracting and repelling forces.   
           
                   because of the above

2. In specific arrangements of magnets and along specific vectors, magnets can be made to approach or be withdraw from very near proximities
  with out doing work against magnetic forces.


That which is seems controversial .............   but which is also very reasonable and  can in fact be done  .....

1. A third magnet can approach and / or be removed from a near proximity to, and also be installed and / or removed from
between a combination of a first and a second magnet, with out doing work against magnetic forces.

2. Said third magnet's installation between a first and second magnet can create a balance between the attracting and repelling
forces between those said first and second magnets.

These actions and force Neutralizations are vector (direction) specific.

Producing work with permanent magnets is as easy as it is with weights.
A falling weight produces work at the expense of its initial gravitational potential energy.
A permanent magnet "falling" towards another one, or pushed away, produces work at the expense of its initial magnetic potential energy.

In both cases, the potential energy on arrival is lower than it was at the beginning. The difference of potential, only depending on the start and end positions of the objects, whether gravitational or magnetic or electric, is the cause of a movement from A to B. If the start and end potentials are the same because we want a cycle, there is no longer a cause to go from A to A.

In order to close the loop you can imagine that going from A to B requires a different work than from B to A. So far it's been wishful thinking, because no experiment has shown it. This is why the theory, in line with the observations, stipulates that the energy used/supplied does not depend on the path (conservative force) but only on the potential difference.

Does anyone see something new in Kozeka's machine? I don't. What would be the subtle "new discovery" of Kozeka that would allow us to bypass everything we have seen so far?

Quote from floor
"I'm satisfied that some of my own tests and measurements demonstrate NET WORK done through permanent magnet interactions."
End quote

That is...... net work done.

Yes I see that his design is workable, although in my opinion he is too much so guided toward the classic mistake of going directly toward circular motions.
Presumably ....  to improve efficiency via conservation of momentum.

Similar, although more circular motion based designs,  it seems are marginal... in the respect  that  they barely demonstrate a work difference between input and output,
and /or are within the margin of error / questionable..

The inventor says that his outputted rotational motion...  needs to a repeat / second stage to complete a full circle of rotation.

I worked with several variations of design (rotating) I  came to that same conclusion myself. 
Although I have previously stated (in a OU forum topic) that my designs "didn't work out".  I don't rule it as outside of the possible..... that if the inventor
can implement additional stages, he might arrive at a self runner.

His design reminds me some what of Howard Johnson's work.. except that

1. Johnson expresses a different theoretical explanation for the excess force / work.
2. The physical mechanisms  of their devices are dissimilar.

But ......  both parties are focused on the  the force differences available at the corners or edges of the magnets / transition zones.
Most rotating designs focus similarly.

Honestly speaking however, I have made only superficial examinations of either ( this design and / or Johnson's  designs).

Because of these and other inventors admissions that their designs were / are marginal, I have taken a different tack.

My explorations have focused upon right angle interactions and reciprocating  motions... with the idea that rotation and momentum conservation
could occur at a later stage.

Conservation of momentum becomes less consequential when    high force / slow, short length displacements .....
                                                 are found in both the input and output of a device.

Perhaps you can help determine, if my designs are " Over Unity" or not ?


              floor

Quote from: Floor on October 09, 2018, 03:17:23 PM
Quote from floor
"I'm satisfied that some of my own tests and measurements demonstrate NET WORK done through permanent magnet interactions."
End quote

That is...... net work done.

Oh, really? That is enough? I am afraid that we do not share the same intellectual demand for scientific evidence.

As long as there is no duplication by independent teams, the assertion of perpetual motion cannot be taken for granted. We need diagrams, measurements with margins of uncertainty, experimental demonstrations, especially when the claim is extraordinary. This is necessary to devote time to duplication and to duplicate. I only saw the diagrams, as in hundreds of other patents for perpetual motion machines that do not work.

The new concept idea that allows the revolutionary effect that we have not been able to achieve so far, would also be welcome. The only thing here is that forces between permanent magnets moving face to face are different from forces between magnets sliding side by side relative to each other, and it is suggested that consequently both in association could maintain a cyclic movement.
The question of forces is something known for a long time, and it is irrelevant: a weaker force can do more work than a stronger force, what matters is not the forces but the work of forces, and therefore their product by their displacement, which is energy. About this point, we have nothing from the inventor.
In conclusion what we have here is an empty shell that Kozeka has to fill, the ball is in his court.

I think self looping is the minimum you have to achieve to go blow on any trumpets. I think there has to be electromagnets included. Then you can just turn magnets off on sticky points.

This might require that the magnet motor is accelerated to a certain sped first, but then you can get electrical power from a second rotor and use that to pulse the first rotor for movement

@Belfior
I agree with you. Only self-looping is a proof. I noticed that when we try to close the loop of a device that we think is overunity, that's when we see the flaw we didn't see before!

Quote from: F6FLT on October 11, 2018, 08:03:24 AM
@Belfior
I agree with you. Only self-looping is a proof. I noticed that when we try to close the loop of a device that we think is overunity, that's when we see the flaw we didn't see before!

I don't know if Bearden can be trusted or not, I mean haven't seen the MEG in shops yet, but he had some good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNU3MLqyzPk

We put 50% of the input back to the negative rail effectively destroying the dipole, so we got 50% to use in our circuit with all losses of that said circuit. That is how we are taught to make circuits and I don't think it is a mistake, but a deliberate scheme to keep those circuits ineffective.

So in my mind the question really is how to agitate charges without dumping back to the source dipole? We have such techniques and we can go around laws like Lenz, but you can pickup any electrical engineering book and it is telling that is the wrong way or it does not mention these techniques at all. I don't think is a coincidence either.

After 2 years of 'research' I went back and watched all the Don Smith videos again. He is really trying to tell us something, but you really gotta listen.

PS.

I wonder what is hiding in the original Maxwell's equations, that Steinmetz and others changed so that they could be easily used in engineering. Quaternion != Vector. I think it is the same if a 2D map is used to describe this planet

Bearden, and at a lower level Don Smith, have theories but not the least working device, not even a proof of concept. In science we must verify and confirm theories by experiments.

For example, let's take the Lenz law you mentioned. Lenz's law is only the consequence that moving charges influence each other via the magnetic field.
The only force on charges is F=q.E with E the electric field either deriving from a potential or, in our case, obtained by a varying magnetic field in which case E=v x B (vector product), v being the speed of the charges relative to the observer who also sees the B field which is the result of moving charges.
Therefore, the situation is symmetrical between the charges of the source of the magnetic field and the moving charges in the field created by the former. From the viewpoint of the charges at the source of the magnetic field, there is no magnetic field (because they are at rest in their own referential) but they see the varying magnetic field of the moving external charges.
The effect of the former on the latter is strictly identical to the effect of the latter on the former, since there is only one physical cause, the relative velocity between charges, resulting in a force (also explicable by Einstein's relativity). So if Lenz's law did not apply, the effect that gives rise to it would not exist either, induction would not exist. Lenz's law and induction law are one and the same, just a question of which charges we look at.

There are many IQ >140 among physicists, we must be very careful to challenge their theories that they have also verified through thousands meticulous experiments. If there is a possibility of free energy, we will have to be very, very, very smart to find it. Or to have an extraordinary luck. It's what we play at.

Yes what we need is empirical evidence !

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6v9zkz

Quote from: Floor on October 11, 2018, 03:41:36 PM
Yes what we need is empirical evidence !

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6v9zkz

Yeah well it is all theories until you have it running on your bench and if it is not self looped I tend not to watch the video. When it is self looped you can forget all measuring error debunkers. Self looping with a battery is also BS Bedini style. I bet you can get OU from a battery system by somehow destroying the battery at the same time. Self loop with caps and I will give you a medal for sure!

Just use 4k video to shoot it, so the "wire finders" can have a good look at it :)

F6FLT

QuoteMany! In electronics, since the age of 11. That's why I'm very careful now. All the experiments in FE I have done so far (single wire transmission, back emf, SMOT, so-called "scalar waves", Steorn-style parametric motors...) show that everything works according to conventional theories.

Cool, many people can work a lifetime and never see anything extraordinary while others just naturally stumble onto it. This is because we are obviously not the same people and we do not think the same and nobody should assume we do.

Quote

QuoteI'm looking for loopholes but I haven't found any yet. Most of those who believe they have found them are only surprised by commonplace phenomena that they do not understand.

Obviously your not looking hard enough and this relates to the concept of "learning how to learn". I see many people who think learning is simply memorizing what others have done however memorizing is more akin to pseudo-learning not genuine learning. To truly learn something new requires an open mind and independence from others not conformity. No person who has ever accomplished anything great or innovative has conformed to anything in the way of normalcy.

If you want to find a loophole look at this...
http://www.rexresearch.com/treshalov/treshalov.htm

Here we see the concept of Exergy or the absolute energy within the entirety of a system which is available to perform work. As well as an introduction to the concept that Kinetic energy and Potential energy in a system are not always intimately bound to one another as we might expect. Treshalov does a poor job of explaining the concept however the foundation is present.

Learning is about progress and if we have made no progress then obviously we have not learned anything. As one intellectual put it we have lived in a lost decade in which nothing of consequence has happened that matters.

@onepower

I have said this before, but when a person that has not come up with anything original teaches kids to do the same, we get to where we are now. After that the teacher and the students are effectively living in a matrix, that was put over their eyes. Anybody that is trying to use their brain is quickly ridiculed back to the flock and we continue on for the next 100 years. The problem here being we might not have another 100 years before things get irreversible. Just like religious people might have a crucifix on their wall the teacher has his Harward diploma on the wall to remind him, that he is a priest and not a scientist. The religion is just different.

You can use your brain, but inside the framework they have provided. You can bet your ass the framework was designed so, that nothing new (old?) and magical is ever found. You can accomplish this by setting the framework and accompanying rules in this way. Everything new comes up by accident and it needs to happen to a person that has the balls to take it forward. Everything new we discover comes about by accident or from a person that is said to be crazy, but we still teach students to be normal and forget all this other nonsense!?! Now that is crazy. Bacteria?!? Smaller that the eye can see?!? Nonsense. Lets put some cow shit on the wound and prepare a mercury drink for the patient...

I get told every week, that I should do normal things and think like normal people. That is another artificial construct. The only outcome of that is that we keep on peddling the mouse wheel for the 1%. Close your eyes and wait for death.

I think the key is to do something differently. If we haven't found the answers yet, it means we are asking the wrong questions. Now why is that? It must be in something in the very basics of the sciences that is totally wrong. Maybe it is just stupidity or maybe it is a deliberate cover up. Everything in archaeology is a temple or a tomb. Maybe they are labs and power plants? People keep destroying shit they do not understand, because there is a risk someone does understand and then they are obsolete. Burn the library of Alexandria. Sumerian history is just mythology and on the other hand Jesus was real and Mohammed was riding a white unicorn to the heavens when he died...

We need to dig way deeper. Have a couple of joints and sleep outside in a tent. Is the Universe about life or is it about death? If it is about life, then we are being provided all we need without us needing to destroy life. So something like fission is an abomination to the whole Creation. Fukushima is a good example. So much death because we want to watch "fuckpile island" on TV. If there is a Creator that sure as shit is not a white bearded old dude sitting on a cloud making deals with one human tribe so they have an eternal license to kill to get their Promised Land. My opinion is that the universe always was or it came about because of some event that produced the first vibrations. Everything is light and vibration. So my church is the universe and everything in it. Infinite possibilities of vibrations to unite and produce stuff like us. So every time you sing a song it is a praise to the Creation. Simple things matter like why do you want to do it in the shower where there are "all the frequencies" present?

The answer to energy might be somewhere before Ampere's (empirical!) law. All we need is to change the "as we all know" to "why?". I am not interested in the 99% that our current rules explain. It is the 1% anomalies I am interested in. We are still using vector representations of Maxwell's equations and if you hit an anomaly you are told just to "ground the shit out of it". We are actively trying to force the 1% into the 99%.

Also I believe that if I look at the stars and have an urge to go see them, that means there is a way to do it. It might be antigravity, free energy or remote viewing, but there is a way. It is this fundamental urge that leads to discovery. I don't think a cat looks at the stars and go "hmm I wanna fly there and meet other species". The cat does not look at the stars!

@F6FLT

I hope you are not too deep into the current dogma, that you can step out of your comfort zone. Everything works to the conventional theories, because that is the way we do research and that is the way we measure. I do believe in the scientific method. I just don't believe in the framework we are given as the basis

People believe in God, but they don't think there are other universes or dimension? Maybe you can resonate something that it pulls crap from another dimension or universe? It is a human perception that this needs gigawatts of power, if at all possible.

Elon Musk said we might be living in a simulation and we need to be weary of letting AI loose. Well who says computer need to be wires and chips? Are we not the AI already? We might be here as an experiment to see if we can figure out the problem the "Creator" has. Maybe the Creator is a machine an this is a simulation. The machine came across an anomaly and we were created to figure it out. It could be consciousness, love or what ever.

I guess OU is explicit content

try again

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6vbkwq

Quote from: Floor on October 12, 2018, 08:33:57 AM
I guess OU is explicit content

try again

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6vbkwq

Explicit content... So they wan to know who is watching this, because you need to sign in to watch this. How nice!

third  attempt

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6vbmvo

My first link to this video worked when I tried it here at OU forum.

Then it went down. "explicit content"

same with another video

So I renamed the first video and uploaded it to dailymotion again.
so far its working.  down load it in case it goes down again?

@Bifilor

Fortunately....  the fear mongers don't have it that wraped up yet.

I think it was just an error on my part... cliked the Parerntal controll mistakenly
during the upload ?  ..... Sure had me worried for a while though !

   regards
       floor

Hmm only saw that video so maybe I do not fully follow what is going on.

One thing came to mind. On the video there is a claim that 105g is pulling 115g up so there is OU.

But I did not see 105g pull up 115g. I saw a finger pushing the sliding unit, that had 105g on it claiming only 105g was pulled. When a finger is used you pull up 105g PLUS anything the magnet interaction needs to get his done. So 105g was pulled plus any work the magnets needed for separation.

I might be wrong, but I am also very.....very drunk atm

Quote from: onepower on October 11, 2018, 08:50:39 PM
...
Obviously your not looking hard enough and this relates to the concept of "learning how to learn". I see many people who think learning is simply memorizing what others have done however memorizing is more akin to pseudo-learning not genuine learning. To truly learn something new requires an open mind and independence from others not conformity. No person who has ever accomplished anything great or innovative has conformed to anything in the way of normalcy.
...

Unfortunately, the facts deny what you say.
Where does the energy you currently use come from? What makes it easy for you to communicate with anyone everywhere? With what do you travel around the planet? Why are you talking about "electric or magnetic fields",  "forces", "energy", "momentum", "power"?
Are all these devices you use and these concepts you handle, the products of scientists and engineers, or of do-it-yourselfers and handymen?

A new idea appears when it is mature, that is, when the context of human knowledge has reached a point from which it can emerge in the minds of some, the best prepared, so-called "pioneers" (for example in electricity, Coulomb, Ampère, Ørsted, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla).
As Louis Pasteur said, "luck favours prepared minds".
Those who innovate are those who know the state of the art, and are therefore able in their observations to differentiate between what is well known and what is new, or are able to find new ways to explore rather than re-invent hot water.

When I see hundreds of posts just on the single wire transmission, I feel like I see children playing a puzzle for which they obviously don't have all the pieces. When you have an electronics engineer background, you know that any device is always inductively or capacitively coupled to its environment, even a simple wire, and you know whether you can neglect its inductance or capacitance, or not. In this case, the components at the wire termination are always more or less coupled to the ground or the generator, so we have a conventional circuit looped by a capacity in the order of pF, and the energy is well drawn from the generator (I myself wasted my time doing the measurement).
The unprepared minds do not see any capacitor, so they shout "Miracle!", unable like children to understand that they are missing parts. The prepared minds include capacities in their schema, and perfectly model single wire transmission with LTspice.

Until now, prepared minds have given us energy. It's not free but it's real, we use it every day. Until now, unprepared minds gave us only dreams, promises or obscure theories that produce nothing (except scams). Unfortunately, dreams and promises do neither power my PC nor warm my house.
Remember that even Tesla was an electrical and mechanical engineer, he received a higher education in engineering and physics at the University of Graz. Truly innovative technical ideas never come out of nowhere, not even from a handyman in his garage. You don't need to have a university education to have ideas, nevertheless if you want your ideas beat those of "prepared minds" in matter of operational technology, you must prepare yourself, and at least acquire the basics. Otherwise, you are seriously handicapped because like children, you turn pieces all over the place hoping to plug the holes in the puzzle, without ever producing anything useful (or you invoke the holes as source of ZPE, slipping from science to religious incantation   :) ).

Very well stated F6FLT.  I agree with you one hundred percent.  The argument about education getting in the way of innovation is ridiculous to the extreme.  When I see a novice making wild claims about a perfectly normal behavior of a circuit or device I am reminded of someone that wants to explore new worlds.  They refuse to take the time to learn what worlds have been explored so everything new to them must be a new discovery.  They are so simple in their thinking they refuse to even learn how to read a map to help them explore for new worlds.  I have had many discussions on this and other forums with people that don't even know how to properly use the meters and other test equipment they have but they are still sure they have made some great discoveries. Thanks for your clear and accurate post.

All of this sounds very condescending, but I don't mean it to be.  None of us were born knowing all about electronics or anything else for that matter, but a lot of us have taken the time to actually try and learn.  And those that refuse to learn make such silly arguments for not taking the time to learn that I just have to comment on it sometimes.

Respectfully,
Carroll

PS: F6FLT sounds like an amateur radio operator's call.  Are you a ham?  My call is WD4SIX

Quote from: citfta on October 13, 2018, 04:00:46 PM
...None of us were born knowing all about electronics or anything else for that matter, but a lot of us have taken the time to actually try and learn.  And those that refuse to learn make such silly arguments for not taking the time to learn that I just have to comment on it sometimes.

Respectfully,
Carroll

PS: F6FLT sounds like an amateur radio operator's call.  Are you a ham?  My call is WD4SIX

Hi Carroll,

I fully agree with you. We are born ignorant. Ignorance is not a defect when it is known, because it can be corrected quite easily (and pleasantly), just study. The real defect is ignorance of one's own ignorance, or complacency towards one's own ignorance, which prevent any progress.

We all have our limits. Some can be corrected by study, others not because our intellectual capacity is insufficient.  This is for example my case in PHD math. On arXiv, there are documents that I don't understand the slightest equation.  I therefore do not dispute the validity of these publications since I do not understand them.
But I see people challenging simple things for others even though they don't understand them. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect: doubt is proportional to competence. The less competent you are, the less aware you are of the limits of your knowledge, the more confident you are in your "knowledge" even if it is baloney. Only education can solve the problem, in many but not all cases.

Quote
PS: F6FLT sounds like an amateur radio operator's call.  Are you a ham?  My call is WD4SIX

Right.   ;)
73
François

Quote from: citfta on October 13, 2018, 04:00:46 PM
Very well stated F6FLT.  I agree with you one hundred percent.  The argument about education getting in the way of innovation is ridiculous to the extreme.  When I see a novice making wild claims about a perfectly normal behavior of a circuit or device I am reminded of someone that wants to explore new worlds.  They refuse to take the time to learn what worlds have been explored so everything new to them must be a new discovery.  They are so simple in their thinking they refuse to even learn how to read a map to help them explore for new worlds.  I have had many discussions on this and other forums with people that don't even know how to properly use the meters and other test equipment they have but they are still sure they have made some great discoveries. Thanks for your clear and accurate post.

All of this sounds very condescending, but I don't mean it to be.  None of us were born knowing all about electronics or anything else for that matter, but a lot of us have taken the time to actually try and learn.  And those that refuse to learn make such silly arguments for not taking the time to learn that I just have to comment on it sometimes.

Respectfully,
Carroll

PS: F6FLT sounds like an amateur radio operator's call.  Are you a ham?  My call is WD4SIX

Education can totally become in the way of innovation. It is just ignorance to think, that entities whose power depends on certain things like energy are not going to affect the academic world or the material that is being used to teach people.

Technology is also being kept from people because of "national security", that funnily enough means that the people (nation) are not going to get it

Quote
...None of us were born knowing all about electronics or anything else for that matter, but a lot of us have taken the time to actually try and learn.  And those that refuse to learn make such silly arguments for not taking the time to learn that I just have to comment on it sometimes.

Totally agree on the first part, but someone might be just learning. We were not all born 60 years ago and are learned ham radio operators. Silly arguments should be met by simple examples, that this person can use to verify your point on the bench. The people that actually "refuse to learn" have the most diplomas on the walls and they are practically priests of the dogma, that was imposed on them. So in their case the education totally stops any innovation and they will go preaching this dogma to next next generation. They will stay in office and get good grants and research packages.

I meet these kinda academic people on regular basis and they are the ones saying "there is no free lunch" or "proving" things by saying "as we all know..." Well I have had many free lunches and I don't know, so tell me.

So my take on all this is that everything is just fairy tales, until you have proven it on a bench and few others replicated it. Education is a valuable asset in your research and will save you a lot of money and time. If you have an intuitive idea that is out of the normal scientific scope, just discus it with your friends and try to prove it on your bench. If you say it out loud on a forum you will be ridiculed until you crawl back to your hole and pay your electric bill like everybody else.

Aristotle said: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." meaning that you can debate with a person about anything, even if you do not agree. You both make points about the idea and come to some conclusion. Well in the case you are both intelligent people anyway.

We have been robbed for 100 years of evolution already and we should have at least our solar system explored.

@Bifilor

You rock !

"When a finger is used you pull up 105g PLUS anything the magnet interaction needs to get his done. So 105g was pulled plus any work the magnets needed for separation."

No... but good guess any way.

As soon as rotation occurs (from 90 degrees toward 40) a RELLING force arises along
the slideing magnet vector.

Although my finger pressure "causes " the SL weight to be lifted.... that lifting is assisted
by the magnet interactions ... ie   as soon as .... or soon after rotation beyound 90 degrees ocurs.
That assisting force increases as RO moves toward the 40 degrees of rotation.

   regards
        floor

ALSO PLEASE NOTE

Rotation is motivated very nearly equally.... by attractionS and repulsionS ... BOTH.

@Floor:

I don't rock. I just have opinions that are sometimes crap and sometimes they raise questions in people. That is something everybody should do. Do not repeat what you were told, but try for yourself and ask questions.

Also I'm a computer engineer, that is studied under electrical engineering, but that only means I can tell the difference between AC and DC. Well. Most of the time...

I am very interested in the universe and the stuff that fills it. The only reason we can't go see it is because we need energy and propulsion. The fact that we are still using chinese new year rockets to do that is just mind boggling. I believe that is a just a dog and pony show for the people that actually pay for it and in reality the CIA is all over the solar system. I am glad I am not alone with this opinion.

Just watch https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6400614/ by Dr. Steven Greer

Why I propose stuff that people/classical engineering might disagree with is because I feel that the only way to hide this technology is to keep us occupied with something that leads to underunity or rocketry.

Here is a ham radio operator, who does not believe in the common antenna theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J02-iLzjFbE&feature=youtu.be&t=1351

F6FLT

QuoteUnfortunately, the facts deny what you say.
Where does the energy you currently use come from? What makes it easy for you to communicate with anyone everywhere? With what do you travel around the planet? Why are you talking about "electric or magnetic fields",  "forces", "energy", "momentum", "power"?
Are all these devices you use and these concepts you handle, the products of scientists and engineers, or of do-it-yourselfers and handymen?

Not to imply too much but a majority of the patents which have benefited mankind were made by people with little or no formal expertise in the field they mastered.

QuoteA new idea appears when it is mature, that is, when the context of human knowledge has reached a point from which it can emerge in the minds of some, the best prepared, so-called "pioneers" (for example in electricity, Coulomb, Ampère, Ørsted, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla).
As Louis Pasteur said, "luck favours prepared minds".
Those who innovate are those who know the state of the art, and are therefore able in their observations to differentiate between what is well known and what is new, or are able to find new ways to explore rather than re-invent hot water.

I agree, however I know many very well educated people who have never accomplished anything in their field of expertise. It would seem to be a combination of attributes such as understanding and knowledge but just as important creativity, curiosity and an open mind. Inventors invent things regardless of their occupation... the rest simply follow along for the ride.

QuoteWhen I see hundreds of posts just on the single wire transmission, I feel like I see children playing a puzzle for which they obviously don't have all the pieces. When you have an electronics engineer background, you know that any device is always inductively or capacitively coupled to its environment, even a simple wire, and you know whether you can neglect its inductance or capacitance, or not. In this case, the components at the wire termination are always more or less coupled to the ground or the generator, so we have a conventional circuit looped by a capacity in the order of pF, and the energy is well drawn from the generator (I myself wasted my time doing the measurement).
The unprepared minds do not see any capacitor, so they shout "Miracle!", unable like children to understand that they are missing parts. The prepared minds include capacities in their schema, and perfectly model single wire transmission with LTspice.

That is a good example how many can be mislead however it is not as cut and dry as you would suggest. For example I built a circuit with what you imply is just a capacitor and I made one plate cease to exist, to disappear. In another instance one capacitor plate was a gas having mobility in which case the plate could change in volume and geometry. Sure it's just a capacitor in some peoples mind who seem to have a simplistic view of things. However my curiosity was when does a capacitor cease to act like one which is a very different story.

Now imagine your single wire capacitor plate has a core of high explosive and once charged to a very high potential was detonated. Now the vaporized capacitor plate is fluid and it is expanding at ballistic velocities, what then?. Is it still just a simple old capacitor plate or should we consider the fact that it now has a wave like properties, high velocity and changes in volume and geometry?. So no it's not just a simple capacitor to those who have the expertise and creativity to think outside the box.

The question is not always how are all these things the same as other things but under what circumstances are they not the same. Under what circumstances does something cease to act as we would expect it should?. That is creativity, invention and a much more difficult proposition than the same old thing in my opinion.

Quote from: Belfior on October 14, 2018, 09:55:31 AM
If you have an intuitive idea that is out of the normal scientific scope, just discus it with your friends and try to prove it on your bench.

Is this a bench proof or do I need highf def video and replication,
or is this fudamental enough / obvious enough to speak for itself ?

Not trying to be a smart a___s here... just asking for opinion.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978

Quote from: Floor on October 14, 2018, 03:39:30 PM
Is this a bench proof or do I need highf def video and replication,
or is this fudamental enough / obvious enough to speak for itself ?

Not trying to be a smart a___s here... just asking for opinion.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978

Well I think it depends what your intentions are? If you want to stay alive you don't tell anybody about it and you just grind bitcoins in your garage with your free electricity.

Steven Greer has a template for publishing it and means to compensate you also.

If you just want to get rich you sell it to an energy company and they will put it on shelf for the next 100 years.

I want to end this slavery and start humanity's journey beyond this planet. Without trying to keep my nation on top of others or weaponizing the invention

Quote from: onepower on October 14, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
...For example I built a circuit with what you imply is just a capacitor and I made one plate cease to exist, to disappear. In another instance one capacitor plate was a gas having mobility in which case the plate could change in volume and geometry. Sure it's just a capacitor in some peoples mind who seem to have a simplistic view of things. However my curiosity was when does a capacitor cease to act like one which is a very different story.
Now imagine your single wire capacitor plate has a core of high explosive and once charged to a very high potential was detonated. Now the vaporized capacitor plate is fluid and it is expanding at ballistic velocities, what then?. Is it still just a simple old capacitor plate or should we consider the fact that it now has a wave like properties, high velocity and changes in volume and geometry?. So no it's not just a simple capacitor to those who have the expertise and creativity to think outside the box.

These experiments are very good ideas to try, at least it is funny. They enter the category "parametric device". This means that you change some values of the components.
The apparent novelty is only due to the fact that most of common devices don't use these methods and that ordinary formula that applies to common electronics devices seem to indicate extraordinary results. But I don't see them as real novelties. The analysis of such cases needs to forget electronics formula and to apply only physics laws by integrating data and parameters over time.

For instance the electronics formula E=1/2 * Q²/C can let you think that decreasing C will give you free extra energy in the capacitor. But you will be wrong. You must calculate the work of the electric force F=q.E on the electrons when you move the plates apart from each other in order to reduce the capacity. This mechanical energy will be exactly the "extra" energy that you retrieve inside the capacitor, but it has been spent to change C, not free! Same thing with parametric inductance (Steorn's motor mistake).

The idea to use explosions to change drastically a parameter is not new either ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator ). It's not easy to be revolutionary in physics because physicists are curious people and they always try to find loopholes in their theories to go further.

Quote
The question is not always how are all these things the same as other things but under what circumstances are they not the same. Under what circumstances does something cease to act as we would expect it should?. That is creativity, invention and a much more difficult proposition than the same old thing in my opinion.

The method is right. The implementation is much more difficult than we think. I don't count the number of times I thought I had a new idea, and physicists had been working on the subject long before, even for some, in the 19th century!  :'(
Nevertheless we have to try our luck...

Quote from: F6FLT on October 14, 2018, 05:07:51 PM

The method is right. The implementation is much more difficult than we think. I don't count the number of times I thought I had a new idea, and physicists had been working on the subject long before, even for some, in the 19th century!  :'(
Nevertheless we have to try our luck...

I am a dumbass, but I come up with stuff every day and I write it in my journal. I mean ideas like how transmutation or what ever could work. Then few months pass and I find a study that has done exactly that. I thought I discovered saturable reactors, but they have been used since 1885 :( This gives me great pleasure, that I can come up with a new thing (new to me) and even if it turns out it was invented earlier, it assures me that I might have a chance in this free energy field.

Btw the Russians have done a lot of work on parametric oscillators and there are claims they were OU, but where can you get the papers and who will translate them :(

F6FLT

QuoteFor instance the electronics formula E=1/2 * Q²/C can let you think that decreasing C will give you free extra energy in the capacitor. But you will be wrong. You must calculate the work of the electric force F=q.E on the electrons when you move the plates apart from each other in order to reduce the capacity. This mechanical energy will be exactly the "extra" energy that you retrieve inside the capacitor, but it has been spent to change C, not free! Same thing with parametric inductance (Steorn's motor mistake).

I would agree and it is best to concentrate on the fundamentals courtesy of people like Ampere, Faraday, Weber, Tesla, Steinmetz and others before all the hocus pocus introduced by Einstein and friends. In fact there is no free lunch and the forces on the fields of any given particle are not much different than tangible objects. My examples were simply to illustrate that there are many ways to skin a cat.

QuoteThe idea to use explosions to change drastically a parameter is not new either ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator ). It's not easy to be revolutionary in physics because physicists are curious people and they always try to find loopholes in their theories to go further.

Yes I am well aware of how flux compression or EMP devices work and I have done a few experiments however I was not speaking of the magnetic field but violent expansion/contraction of an electric field which is almost unknown in the art. The magnetic field is not the glue which binds matter together it is electric in nature. In fact the magnetic field has been studied to death for decades and the electric field was ignored however this is no longer the case. Meta-materials or nano-technology, cold fusion and dual layer capacitor/membranes have opened everyone's eyes to endless possibilities. I have little interest in magnetic fields... it's a well worn path to nowhere in my opinion. I mean it doesn't even bother to show up until after the electric field has done all the work, lol.

Quote
The question is not always how are all these things the same as other things but under what circumstances are they not the same. Under what circumstances does something cease to act as we would expect it should?. That is creativity, invention and a much more difficult proposition than the same old thing in my opinion.

QuoteThe method is right. The implementation is much more difficult than we think. I don't count the number of times I thought I had a new idea, and physicists had been working on the subject long before, even for some, in the 19th century!  :'(
Nevertheless we have to try our luck...

It sounds like you have done a few experiments, lol. First it is hard enough to get even a basic experiment set up with anything in the way of accurate measurement. Then if there are multiple timing functions or variables the setup looks easy by comparison. Then once everything plays out we have the problem of determining what the measurements were looking at actually mean in reality. There is nothing easy about it in any sense of the word in my opinion however it is the only way to learn something new.

the topic is  .....

New discovery suggest that permanent magnet motors might be possible
« on: September 26, 2018, 05:53:45 PM »


I stumbled across this link. Interesting reading, but is it legit?
Please share your views on this.

https://www.powerelectronics.com/alternative-energy/new-discovery-could-lead-commercial-production-permanent-magnet-motors


posted by Vidar

Re: New discovery suggest that permanent magnet motors might be possible
« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2018, 09:39:30 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: Belfior on October 14, 2018, 03:55:31 PM

"    If you have an intuitive idea that is out of the normal scientific scope, just discus it with your friends and try to prove it on your bench."  END QUOTE

Quote from  floor
"Is this a bench proof or do I need high def video and replication,
or is this fudamental enough / obvious enough to speak for itself ?

Not trying to be a smart a___s here... just asking for opinion."

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978

End quote

Bifilar.... your responce

Quote
"Well I think it depends what your intentions are? If you want to stay alive you don't tell anybody about it and you just grind bitcoins in your garage with your free electricity."
End Quote

Bench proof or not depends on ones intentions ? non secquiter or what ?

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6v9zkz

Again "explicit content".

thanks

These are the same videos I last posted in the other topic (Magnet Motion and Measurement)
You have seen them ...

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6vbmvo

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6va1an

And this one

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59r978

Give me reason to expect that the inventor might eventually succeed..

Quote from: Floor on October 15, 2018, 07:49:37 PM

Bifilar.... your responce

Quote
"Well I think it depends what your intentions are? If you want to stay alive you don't tell anybody about it and you just grind bitcoins in your garage with your free electricity."
End Quote

Bench proof or not depends on ones intentions ? non secquiter or what ?

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6v9zkz

I kinda read it as "how much proof does one need?" and the question actually was (or so I believe) "is this bench proof?"

I have to say that I am not the person to answer that. I can as always give you my opinion or brain farts that come to my mind :)

1. I have no clue what is the thing that is being proven here. That magnets in certain angles do not repel or attract?
2. Why does it always have to be a 7 ton truck that is used to prove something? You can easily lose something in the friction or other losses
3. Could something else be used like a pendulum with a magnet that just passes the 2 upright magnets when they are in a certain angle?
4. If the pendulum works, it is still a long way from a self looped machine.
5. Using time to prove OU exists by itself is a bit of a waste in my opinion. Aim straight for the self looped machine and the proof will be inherit in it

@Floor
When you lift the bottle up with your finger, it doesn't necessarily mean that
you are applying a force equal to the weight of the bottle.
The force can be bigger, it this case you create an acceleration according to the second law.
You need to make a bottle to push the SL forward, then you will know the required force.
Regards

Quote from: telecom on October 16, 2018, 10:30:08 PM
@Floor
When you lift the bottle up with your finger, it doesn't necessarily mean that
you are applying a force equal to the weight of the bottle.
The force can be bigger, it this case you create an acceleration according to the second law.
You need to make a bottle to push the SL forward, then you will know the required force.
Regards

That was the point I was trying to make earlier.

@Floor

Not trying to pee in your cerial here! This is constructive critisim!

Quote from: telecom on October 16, 2018, 10:30:08 PM

When you lift the bottle up with your finger, it doesn't necessarily mean that
you are applying a force equal to the weight of the bottle.
The force can be bigger, it this case you create an acceleration according to the second law.
You need to make a bottle to push the SL forward, then you will know the required force.
Regards

             "The force can be bigger"
                      Wrong.....  can not be and  is not bigger. and monkeys might fly out of your butt to.

The Force needed to lift the SL weight applied starts at 105 grams and decreases as RO rotates... when RO is allowed
to rotate under the force of the RO weight as SL weight is lifted..

    "in this case you create an acceleration according to the second law."

Wrong.... Input (by lifting SL)and output (by RO weight falling) CAN BE simultaneous BUT DO NOT NEED TO BE.
If RO is NOT allowed to rotate by force of the RO weight (it remains at 90 deg.), as the SL weight is lifted,
the  lifting force is constant at 105 grams through out the 22 degrees of lifting.  period.   

This lifting of SL  is 22 / 40 of the distance the RO weight is lifted when the SL weight falls.

If after SL is lifted  it (SL)  is gradually lowered.... It will still cause the lifting of the RO weight.  I was as careful to calibrate
every thing so that this would remain so.

Your considerations of acceleration  are a misdirection.

Quote from: Floor on October 18, 2018, 06:09:26 PM


             "The force can be bigger"
                      Wrong.....  can not be and  is not bigger. and monkeys might fly out of your butt to.

The Force needed to lift the SL weight applied starts at 105 grams and decreases as RO rotates... when RO is allowed
to rotate under the force of the RO weight as SL weight is lifted..

    "in this case you create an acceleration according to the second law."

Wrong.... Input (by lifting SL)and output (by RO weight falling) CAN BE simultaneous BUT DO NOT NEED TO BE.
If RO is NOT allowed to rotate by force of the RO weight (it remains at 90 deg.), as the SL weight is lifted,
the  lifting force is constant at 105 grams through out the 22 degrees of lifting.  period.   

This lifting of SL  is 22 / 40 of the distance the RO weight is lifted when the SL weight falls.

If after SL is lifted  it (SL)  is gradually lowered.... It will still cause the lifting of the RO weight.  I was as careful to calibrate
every thing so that this would remain so.

Your considerations of acceleration  are a misdirection.

I'm wrong most of the time, and the main reason in this case being the difficulty
of clearly seeing what actually takes place in your setup.
What would really help, is a clear diagram of the apparatus, indicating polarities of the magnets, and step by step sequence of the interaction.
I'm sure that with your drafting skills this won't be that hard to produce.
Then it will be easier to understand what actually happens there.
Best regards

@ telecom

Certain magnet interactions it sometimes seems, are almost made to boggle the mind.
It takes time and effort to sort them out.

Give it time.  Relax.

OK

Diagrams explanations

https://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/dlattach/attach/169582/

https://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/dlattach/attach/169588/

https://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/dlattach/attach/169174/

Watch / study the videos at          https://www.dailymotion.com/us     type in    seethisvid    in the search box.

         force = Mass     times    acceleration
                   but more fundamentally
         energy = force   times    displacement

         I will post more links when ever you want.   There are a lot more.


         Regards
                   floor

I think I got a handle of the TD unit.
The way I see it, you limit RO going past 90, and it actually wants to go
to 180 ( to be parallel to SL).
Then you attach the weight to be at a certain angle when SL is far.
When SL get closer, it  pushes RO towards 90 by the repulsion field.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't mind to see more links though because its a very facsinating subject.
Regards

The key to Dr.Kozeka discovery is this chart.
It shows that at the distance of 5 mm  the separation force is 1/5 of
the original.

Quote from: telecom on March 08, 2019, 10:53:29 AM
The key to Dr.Kozeka discovery is this chart.
It shows that at the distance of 5 mm  the separation force is 1/5 of
the original.

Why 1/5 ? When "original" = no distance 1600 and by 5 mm 200 then 200/1600 = 1/8

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4345174A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4345174A/en)
                                      2 D cells electromagnet


Force,  at contact= no distance .      500 pounds
                                  1 mm distance  125 pounds
                                  2 mm distance.   31 pounds
                                  3 mm  distance.   7,8 pounds       

Quote from: telecom on March 08, 2019, 10:53:29 AM
The key to Dr.Kozeka discovery is this chart.
It shows that at the distance of 5 mm  the separation force is 1/5 of
the original.

The notion of force is irrelevant in matter of energy. Energy = Force x Displacement.

If you lift a 100 kg weight to a height of 0.1 m, at the end of a lever that has a ratio of 10 for the length of both arms, the force you will apply will only be 10 kg. Is it "free energy"? Of course not. The distance of movement of the lever arm on your side will be 1 m instead of 0.1 m.   100 x 0.1 = 10 x 1.
With magnets it's the same thing. The field gradient is not the same everywhere, so the lower force on one side will have to be applied over a longer distance, and the energy will be balanced in each zone.

Kozeka calculates forces but not work which is the only interesting concept, either because he is incompetent or because he is looking for investors for a scam (otherwise why?).

Quote from: F6FLT on March 08, 2019, 02:47:08 PM
The notion of force is irrelevant in matter of energy. Energy = Force x Displacement.


Kozeka calculates forces but not work which is the only interesting concept, either because he is incompetent or because he is looking for investors for a scam (otherwise why?).

This is absolutely untrue.
In his documents he goes to a great length explaining what you just wrote about force vs work,and he doesn't find work being the same in a different planes.
This is caused by the difference in the density of the magnetic field.

Quote from: telecom on March 08, 2019, 04:50:00 PM
This is absolutely untrue.
In his documents he goes to a great length explaining what you just wrote about force vs work,and he doesn't find work being the same in a different planes.
This is caused by the difference in the density of the magnetic field.

This is perfectly true, "Kozeka calculates forces but not work which is the only interesting concept", and the paper you gave proves it: we see a beautiful formula "work = force x distance" but then only force tables, for example from page 48 onwards, and no tables of the work of the forces. Or specify the page.

When you see the document starting with considerations on pollution, oil, or digression on the strength of neodymium magnets, rather than getting to the facts, you understand that it is simply a matter of impressing and preparing a psychological conditioning to make us swallow a big non-scientific absurdity. I know this method, I've read dozens of them before, each time scams.

Go to the page 10, this is where it starts.
I don't blame you for your apprehension, but this document seems to be
within reason, as long as all the data are correct.
I will try proving it myself, just need to get a digital fish scale.

Quote from: telecom on March 09, 2019, 09:17:52 AM
Go to the page 10, this is where it starts.
I don't blame you for your apprehension, but this document seems to be
within reason, as long as all the data are correct.
I will try proving it myself, just need to get a digital fish scale.

Nothing on page 10, only the value of a possible work doable by a magnet is given (in an exotic non-scientific unit, work/energy is in Joule, at least in Wh, not in "inch-pounds" :), we see they target the laymen and the investors ). Of course a magnet can work, it depends on its initial magnetic potential energy, everyone knows that.
The problem is that nowhere is there a calculation of the work of the forces in both cases of movement, with their comparison for a possible gain. Their analysis is an empty shell, its appearance is misleading.

Quote from: F6FLT on March 09, 2019, 01:03:12 PM
Nothing on page 10, only the value of a possible work doable by a magnet is given (in an exotic non-scientific unit, work/energy is in Joule, at least in Wh, not in "inch-pounds" :), we see they target the laymen and the investors ). Of course a magnet can work, it depends on its initial magnetic potential energy, everyone knows that.
The problem is that nowhere is there a calculation of the work of the forces in both cases of movement, with their comparison for a possible gain. Their analysis is an empty shell, its appearance is misleading.

When I was in school, they taught me work in kg * m - what is the difference?
The comparison of the difference of work in the axial vs lateral directions is on page 12.
Can you for once read the whole document before commenting?

Quote from: telecom on March 09, 2019, 01:52:08 PM
When I was in school, they taught me work in kg * m - what is the difference?
The comparison of the difference of work in the axial vs lateral directions is on page 12.
Can you for once read the whole document before commenting?

Nothing on page 12 either. It's not even a work calculation. To do this, it is necessary to integrate the product F*distance on the trajectory, and to be conclusive, it is necessary to show that for the same starting and arrival point, this integration depends on the trajectory, i.e. here, is different when the magnets slide side by side or move away from each other.

Will you continue to indicate page numbers unrelated to the problem raised, or have you understood the question, that of the experimental demonstration with measurement data that the work depends on the path, while all we know and see until now is that this is never the case when the energy comes from a potential difference, here a magnetic potential?

https://www.voanews.com/a/can-better-electric-motor-save-planet/4235140.html (https://www.voanews.com/a/can-better-electric-motor-save-planet/4235140.html)
as explained more than 20 years before :
http://www.geminielectricmotor.com/ (http://www.geminielectricmotor.com/)
permanent magnet motors and magnets true potential force use , demagnetisation risk thrue coercive force :
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6037692A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6037692A/en)
power/density + efficiency : 1 up to 10 KW output per Kg motor weight and 99% conversion, RPM/Frequency!

Quote from: F6FLT on March 11, 2019, 05:36:04 AM
Nothing on page 12 either. It's not even a work calculation. To do this, it is necessary to integrate the product F*distance on the trajectory, and to be conclusive, it is necessary to show that for the same starting and arrival point, this integration depends on the trajectory, i.e. here, is different when the magnets slide side by side or move away from each other.

Will you continue to indicate page numbers unrelated to the problem raised, or have you understood the question, that of the experimental demonstration with measurement data that the work depends on the path, while all we know and see until now is that this is never the case when the energy comes from a potential difference, here a magnetic potential?

I think all of this is addressed in the document, exactly the way you outlined it.
I can't say for sure, though, that all the data presented are correct - they need to be retested independently.
I'm not against a healthy bias, but your bias is interfering with the productive thought.

https://www.powerelectronics.com/alternative-energy/permanent-magnet-motor-feasible

Quote from: lancaIV on March 12, 2019, 05:47:49 PM
https://www.powerelectronics.com/alternative-energy/permanent-magnet-motor-feasible (https://www.powerelectronics.com/alternative-energy/permanent-magnet-motor-feasible)

I have read both this article, and the article that it links to at the beginning (The article that made me post the initial post in this thread).
I did a simulation in FEMM, but the complete cycle is somewhat inconclusive due to inaccuracy in the simulation, but no obvious signs of a working model.


I't easy to believe that it would work if you ignore the magnets travel (distance), but if you multiply the distances with the magnetic forces (potential energy at any given point in space), and summarize all positions, you end up in about nothing.
Say you simulate a scenario that is 100mm x 100mm, and you take measurements at every mm, the result average to zero - more or less.


Vidar

Thanks for your trial comment  !
In the second "powerelectronics" article the most interesting is the definition from a / the " permanent magnet"from academical physics science view  !
To see like a " permanent recharging magnetostatic capacitor".
wmbr         
OCWL

Quote from: telecom on March 11, 2019, 07:31:43 AM
I think all of this is addressed in the document, exactly the way you outlined it.
I can't say for sure...

It's easy to know for sure!  ::)
It is enough to have the basic skills in electromagnetism, to read the paper, to notice that there is no calculation of the work from the tables of force that are given and no comparison between the two cases.

Why not just build it? Two permanentmagnets should not be hard to place on a table and test the physics in real world.


Vidar

Quote from: Low-Q on March 13, 2019, 09:18:54 AM
Why not just build it? Two permanentmagnets should not be hard to place on a table and test the physics in real world.


Vidar

Didn't Floor observe something similar in his TD drive?

Quote from: telecom on March 13, 2019, 04:53:41 PM
Didn't Floor observe something similar in his TD drive?

Maybe Floor can tell something about that. Honestly, I cannot remember if I have seen that video (if there is one). So many magnet-topics here, and so many magnet-videos on youtube. I haven't track on all these, LOL ;D


Vidar

This is the thread
https://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/60/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSu-wUXbUoI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSu-wUXbUoI)

Do CC translate on YouTube to English text ...

see  INFINITY SAV on   youtube also...

It's here ans it's been around for a while....
[/font]

One more link for Vegas

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZkuteW_Q9k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZkuteW_Q9k)

First 'Magnet Motor' installed in Las Vegas. (It's NOT Perpetual Motion)

Kerry Welsh
Published on Jan 23, 2019
A factory in Las Vegas is home to the world's first (and definitely not the last) 'Earth Engine'. Fueled only by polarity-modified rare earth magnets, the EE can generate 25 kwh of power for years on end. While it's truly amazing and potentially Earth-changing, what it ISN'T is a perpetual motion machine, as magnets eventually wear out. Many more motors are scheduled to be installed soon. www.ie.energy

 [url=https://ie.energy/about.html]https://ie.energy/about.html (https://www.ie.energy/video/earth_engine_longform_v07-1000x428.mp4)[/size][/font][/url]
https://www.ie.energy/video/earth_engine_longform_v07-1000x428.mp4 (https://www.ie.energy/video/earth_engine_longform_v07-1000x428.mp4)
https://www.ie.energy/video/disruptive_technology_10-10_v01.mp4 (https://www.ie.energy/video/disruptive_technology_10-10_v01.mp4)
https://www.ie.energy/video/importance_of_the_team.mp4 (https://www.ie.energy/video/importance_of_the_team.mp4)
https://www.ie.energy/video/get_involved.mp4 (https://www.ie.energy/video/get_involved.mp4)

https://www.ie.energy/video/engine_introduction_conf.mp4 (https://www.ie.energy/video/engine_introduction_conf.mp4)


https://freedomfest2018.sched.com/sponsor/iec_laboratories.1y79x6bz (https://freedomfest2018.sched.com/sponsor/iec_laboratories.1y79x6bz)

Welcome to "Where Is the Voice of Reason?" FreedomFest 2018 July 11 - 14 2018 Paris Resort Las Vegas. You are part of "the greatest libertarian show on earth." Enjoy three and half days full of learning, sharing, networking and growing the liberty movement, together!


Inductance Energy Corporation
Inductance Energy Corporation in 2018 will complete the first commercial installations of the Danzik Magnetic Propulsion Engine – The Earth Engine. These patent-pending, 7.5-kilowatt to 25-kilowatt engines produce power through the applied science of magnetic propulsion, delivering 2,500 to over 25,000 pounds of reactive magnetic pressure to produce emissionless power for pumping, compressors, air conditioning, and electrical energy. After eight years of laboratory development, under management of noted engineer Dennis M. Danzik, the Earth Engine is now being installed in four key western States during 2018. IEC will be demonstrating commercial models of the Earth Engine at FreedomFest. [/font]

Quote from: telecom on March 13, 2019, 08:05:13 PM
This is the thread
https://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/60/

This is probably not a good example because I can't figure out what he
is trying to do there, so forget it.

The effect of difference between the vertical and horizontal pull is quite noticeable
when vertical distance reaches 3/4".
Then the vertical pull is very close to zero, while there is still some horizontal pull between 2 magnets.
I observed it by placing an aluminum plate between 2 elongated blocks.

While playing with the magnets, I found out that  there  is a unidirectional force if magnets are off set